IFrom  tljp  ICtbrarg  of 

'it  » 

lFqupatl|p5  bg  Ijim  to 
tIjF  Cibrarg  of 


BR  333  .K6713  1897  v. 2  c.2 
K  ostlin,  Julius,  1826-1902 
The  theology  of  Luther 


THE  I*     J^^L^J81922      *\ 


THEOLOGY  OF    LUTHER 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  INNKR  HARMONY. 


Dr.  JULIUS  KOSTLIN, 

PROFESSOR  AND  CONSISTORIALRATH  AT   HALLE. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  SECOND  GERMAN  EDITION 

BY 

Rev.  CHARLES  E.  HAY,  A.  M. 


COMPLETE  IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 


VOIv.  II. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
LUTHERAN  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 


Copyright,  1897, 

BY   THE 

LUTHERAN  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


BOOK  III.  (Continued). 

PRINCIPAL  POINTS  IN  WHICH  AN  ADVANCE  IS  MANIFEST 

IN  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  LUTHER  AFTER  HIS  RETIREMENT 

AT  THEWARTBURG:  DEVELOPED  IN  OPPOSITION 

TO  TENDENCIES  WHICH  APPEARED  UPON  THE 

TERRITORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION  ITSELF. 


CHAPTER  IL 

(Chapter  I.  op  Book  III.  will  be  found  in  Volume  I.) 

Opposition  to  the  Falsely  Evangelical  Spirit. 

PAGE 

Introductory   19 

Section  i.  Doctrines  and   Demands  Opposed  by  Luther  before  his  Con- 
troversy with  Zwiiigli. 

I.  Their  Nature  and  Inner  Mutual  Relations. 

Outbreak  at  Wittenberg — Carlstadt — Munzer 21 

Priestly  Vestments — Reception  of  Elements  by  Hand  or  Mouth — 

Communion  without  Confession — Opposition  to  Fasts,  Pictures, 

etc 21 

Zwickau  Prophets — Inward    Illumination — Opposition    to    Infant 

Baptism — Violence — Destruction  of  Wicked  Men 22 

Law  of  Moses  Valid  in  Secular  Relations 23 

Carlstadt's  Views  upon  Infant   Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper  and 

Lay  Activity .  24 

Connection    with    Medieval    Mysticism — Grounds   of    Morality — 

Relation  of  Man  and  God — The  Historic  Christ  Depreciated  .  24 
Result  seen  in  Unbridled  License  or  Fanatical  Legality 28 

II.  The  Teaching  of  Luther  in  Opposition. 

1.  The_Fund3menlal„Do^t'"'nr  "f  .t;alvg_t;Qn--T  aw  and  Gospel — 

Positive  Faith 28 

2.  Opposition  to  False  Externality  and  Defence  of  the  Divinely- 

Appointed  External  Means  of  Grace  and  of  External  Order  in 

the  Church ZZ 

(iii) 


IV  TABLE    OF   CONTENTS, 

PAGB 

A. —  Opposition  to  False  Externality  and  Legality. 

The  Christian  Free  from  Ordinances 33 

Mosaic  Law  Not  Binding 34 

Natural  Laws  Permanent 36 

Mosaic  Law  as  Model  for  Legislators 37 

Observance  of  the  Sabbath 38 

Usury — Year  of  Jubilee — Punishment  of  Theft   .......  40 

B. — Defence  of  the  Objectivity  of  the  True  Means  of  Gtace  and  of  a 
Proper  Ecclesiastical  Order. 

No  Change  of  Principles,  but  Application  in  a  New  Direction  .  4I 
a. —  The  Means  of  Grace  in  General — Particularly,  the  Word. 

God  Speaks  to  Us  only  through  External  Means 43 

rf  b. — Infant  Baptism,  and  Baptism  in  General. 

Stress  upon  Faith  of  Parents  or  Sponsors 45 

Doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  Endorsed  by  the  Whole  Church  .  45 

Children  may  have  Faith 47 

Divine  Authority  for  Infant  Baptism 52 

Objective  Validity  apart  from  Faith  of  Recipient 54 

Anabaptism  a  New  Phase  of  Self-Righteousness 55 

Divergences  of  Zwingli  and  Bucer 56 

C. —  The  Lord's  Supper. 

aa, —  Opposition  to  the  Denial  of  the  Bodily  Presence  before  the 
Annoitncetnent  of  Carlstadt's  Theory. 

Views  of  Bohemian  Brethren — Not  Clear,  but  Acknowledg- 
ing a  "  Divine  Gift  " 58 

Zwingli's  View  Anticipated  by  Honius 62 

Positive  Attitude  of  Luther 62 

Treatise  upon  Adoration  of  the  Sacrament  .......  63 

Natural  Sense  of  Words  vs.  "Sigfiifcat'''' 64 

Not  a  Mere  Sign  of  Incorporation  into  Spiritual  Body  of 
Christ,  but  Christ's    Natural    Body   Imparted    to   All 

Communicants 65 

Association  of  Body  and  Bread 68 

The  Word  of  Chief  Importance 70 

bb. — Defence  of  the  Bodily  Presence  against  Carlstadt. 

Carlstadt's  "Remembrance"  a  P'orm  of  Work-Righteous- 
ness      72 

"  ToDTo  "  refers  to  the  Bread  ;  "  Given,"  to  the  Distribution.  72 

The  Simple  Word  vs.  Reason 74 

Forgiveness  of  Sins,  Purchased  on  the  Cross,  here  Bestowed.  75 

Objections  drawn  fram  Matt.  xxiv.  23  and  John  vi.  63    .    .  77 

Relation  of  Presence  in  Sacrament  to  that  in  Heaven    .    .  78 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  V 

PAGB 

Synecdoche 80 

Prime  Significance  of  the  Word 81 

Relation  of  Two  Natures  in  Ciirist 82 

d. — Support  of  Ecclesiastical  Order,  especially  of  a  Regular  Call  to 
the  Mifiistry,  against  Carlstadt  and  Other  Fanatics. 

Stimulating    Influence   of    the    Doctrine    of    the    Universal 

Priesthood 84 

Abuse  by  Zwickau  Prophets 85 

Call  to  the  Ministry 85 

Limitations  of  Lay  Activity 86 

Intrusions  of  Anabaptists  Condemned 92 

Violent  Resistance  of  Legal  Authorities  not  Justified  ....  97 

Section  2.  Opposition   to  Theories  of  the  Lord's  Supper  Advanced  by 
Zvvingli  and  Qicolampadius. 

Introductory — Relation  of  Zwinglian  Views  to  those  of  the  Fanatics    .       98 

1.  First  Public  Criticisms  of  the  Views  of  Zwingli  and  (Ecolam- 

paditis. 

Suspicious  Circumstances  Noted  by  Luther lOO 

Letter  to  the  Strassburgers. 

"  Signifies." — Discussion  Inevitable loi 

The  Swabian  Syngramma. 

A  "Gift"  Bestowed  in  Sacrament 102 

The  Word  Brings  the  Body  to  the   Bread  for  the  Believing 

Communicant I02 

A  Real  vs.  Iiieal  Participation 106 

Presence  of  Body  in  Heaven  and   in  Sacrament 107 

Relation  to  the  Communion  of  Saints 107 

Luther's  Attitude  toward  the  Document 108 

2.  Further  Controversial  Writings   Preceding  the  Conciliato7y  Ne- 

gotiations with  Bluer. 

a.  Dissertation  :  "  Of  the  Sacrament   of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  against  the  Fanatical  Spirits." 

Object  to  be  Grasped  by  Faith  in  the  Sacrament 109 

Reply  to  Objections. 

Presence  of  Body  Incongruous  (Doctrine  of  Person  of  Christ 

Involved) IIO 

Presence  of  Body  Unnecessary II2 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Benefits  of  Sacrament. 

Forgiveness  of  Sins  and  Salvation 112 

Attestation  of  the  Promise  to  the  Individual 113 

Memorial  of  Christ's  Death 1 14 

Promotive  of  Love  among  Believers 114 

b.  Tract  entitled  :  "  That  these  Words  of  Christ,  '  This  is  my  body,' 

etc.,  still  Stand  Secure  against  the  Fanatical  Spirits.-" 
Reply  to  First  Objection,  i.  e..  That  it  is  a  Contradiction  to  say 
that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  in  Heaven  and  also  in  the  Sacra- 
ment— 

The  Right  Hand  of  God  is  Everywhere      116 

Christ  can   More    Easily  be  in  the  Bread  than  in  All  Otiier 

Created  Tilings Iig 

Yet    We    can   Apprehend    Him   only  When  He    Reveals 

Himself 120 

Reply  to  Second  Objection,  i.  e.,  That  the  Flesh  Profiteth  Noth- 
ing.— John  vi.  63 — 
There  is  in  John  vi.  63  no  Reference  to  the  Body  of  Christ.  121 
Spiritual  should  be  Combined  with  Bodily  Eating  ....     121 
Benefits  of  Bodily  Participation. 

The  Word  of  Promise  Appropriated 124 

The   Body  of  Christ  is  Spiritual  Flesh  and  may  be  Par- 
taken of  Bodily  or  Spiritually 135 

It  Brings  to  the  Soul,  Righteousness ;  to  the  Body,  Im- 
mortality     125 

The  Mouth  Eats  for  the  Heart 1 27 

The   Heart   Eats  for  the  Mouth.     Why  then  is  Oral  Re- 
ception Necessary  ? 127 

Appeal  to  Patristic  Testimony 129 

Body  and  Blood  not  Present  in  Sacramentarian  Celebrations 
of  the  Supper  129 

c.  The  Large  Confession  of  A.  D.  1528  upon  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Figurative  Interpretation  Condemned. 

•' Is"  Nowhere  in  Scripture  Means  "  Signifies" 131 

Bread  as  a  Figure  would  be  Unnecessary,  Profitless  and  In- 
appropriate     133 

Breaking  of  Bread  refers  to  Distribution 133 

Doctrine  of  tlie  Person  of  Christ — 

Refutation   of  Zwingli's  Allaosis I34 

Christ's  Presence  in  Heaven  Involves   His   Presence   Else- 
where     135 

Three  Modes  of  Presence — Local,  Definitive,  Repletive   .     137 
Christ's  Body  not  an  "Alterum  Infinitum" 140 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  Vll 

PAGE 

Christ's  Body  may  be  Present  in  Supper  Definitively,  even 
though  Special  Location  in  Heaven  be  Granted  ....     143 

Demands  of  Identical  Predication  met  by  Sacramental 
Unity  of  Body  and  Bread. — Synecdoche 145 

Sacrament  a  Sign,  not  of  Body,  but  of  the  Unity  of  Believers.  148 

Blessing  of  Sacrament  is  Forgiveness  of  Sins  Embraced  in 
Word  of  Promise 149 

d.  Luther  at  Marburg — The  Schwabach  Articles. 

Error  in  One  Doctrine  makes  All  Unclean 151 

Old  Arguments  Met 152 

Unexpected    Harmony    Except   in    Doctrine   of    the    Lord's 

Supper 153 

Person  of  Christ  and  Bodily  Presence  more  Precisely  Defined 

in  Schwabach  Articles 154 

,  Negotiations  with   Btuer — Wittenberg    Concord — Ltitker's  New 
Assault  upon  the  Ztvinglians. 
Tetrapolitana. — A  "  Gift,"  but  merely  Food  for  the  Soul  .    .    .     155 
Colloquy  w  ith  Bucer  and  Subsequent  Letters — Reception  by  the 

Ungodly  the  Point  of  Diff"erence 156 

Augsburg  Confession  Adopted  by  Cities  of  Upper  Germany — 

Luther  Suspicious  .      159 

Colloquy  at  Cassel — Surprising  Harmony — Luther  Gratified  .    .     162 
The  Wittenberg  Concord. 

Luther :  The   Bread  is  the   Body  by  Virtue  of  the   Power  of 

Christ;  hence,  even  for  Ungodly  Communicants  ....  167 
Adopted,  Except  in  Substituting  "  Unworthy  "  for  "  Ungodly."  169 
Much  nearer  Luther's  View  than  Helvetic  Confession   ...     172 

The  Swiss  Withhold  Assent 173 

Conciliatory  Attitude  of  Luther 174 

Indignation  Aroused  Anew — Cologne  Constitution  Condemned.   183 
"  Short  Confession  of  the  Holy  Sacrament " — Seven  Fanatical 

Spirits 188 

Consideration  for  Melanchthon,  Bucer  and  Calvin 188 

Kindness  to  the  Bohemians — Warning  to  them 192 

Denunciation  of  Zwinglianism  and  the  Swiss  Theologians  ...     194 
Modifications  of  I,uther's  Theology  during  the  Development- 
Period  covered  by  Book  III 196 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


BOOK  IV. 


THE  DOCTRINAL  VIEWS  OF  LUTHER  PRESENTED  IN 
SYSTEMATIC  ORDER. 


Introductory. 

PAGB 

A.  General  Character  of  Luther's  Teaching 20l 

B.  Range  of  Topics  and  their  Original  Mutual  Relations 208 

C.  Order  Observed  in  Presentation  of  Topics 217 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Source  of  Religious  Truth, 

1.  Methods  of  Revelation. 

> 

General  Revelation  through  Works  of  Nature,  etc 218 

Special  Revelation  in  Sacred  Scriptures 219 

Tradition 222 

2.  The  Grmnd of  Eaith.ili.the  Script ures.^ 

Does  not  Rest  upon  Authority  of  the  Church 224 

Support  of  Antiquity  Valuable,  but  not  Decisive 224 

Inner  Witness  of  the  Spirit 226 

Relation  to  Christ  the  Criterion  for  Every  Part 228 

3.  Separate  Parts  of  the  Scriptures. 

Relation  of  Old  and  New^  Testaments 230 

Moses  and  the  Law 231 

The  Prophets,  Freedom  in  Criticising 233 

The  Psalms,  High  Estimate  of 236 

Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Solomon 237 

Job 238 

Historical  Books • 239 

Apocryphal  Books 240 

Superiority  of  the  New  Testament 241 

Epistles  of  Paul :  Romans,  Galatians,  Ephesians 243 

Gospel  of  John.     I.  John 243 

I.  Peter 243 

The  Synoptical  Gospels 243 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 244 

II.  and  III.  John.     II.  Peter 244 

Hebrews 246 

James 247 

Jude 247 

Revelation 248 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  IX 

PAGE 

4.  Inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Writers. 

The  Bible_£iven  by  the  Hply  Spirit 250 

Inspiration  Attaches  Primarily  to  Oral  Deliverances 252 

Co-operation  of  Human  Agency 253 

Gradation  among  Inspired  BooiiS »    .    .    .    .  253 

Disparagement  of  Portions  of  Accepted  Books 254 

5.  Exposition  and  Understanding  0/  Scripture. 

The  Word  Clear,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  must  Enable  to  Understand  It  258 

It  must  be  Interpreted  in  Harmony  with  Christ 258 

Proper  Sense  vs.  Allegorical  Interpretation 259 

Right  of  Private  Judgment 261 

6.  Study  of  the  Sc?-iptures. 

Textual  and  Topical  Knowledge — Inward  Preparation 261 

Mystical  Ideas 262 

Inability  of  Reason 263 

Reason  Enlightened  in  Regeneration 265 

Scriptures  Furnish  All  Religious  Truth,  but  it  may  be  Developed  in 

Human  Confessions,  etc 268 

7.  Fundamental  Articles. 

All  Doctrines  Closely  Related  .    . 270 

Ignorance  or  Denial  of  Some  Articles  does  not  Necessarily  Imperil 

the  Salvation  of  the  Individual 271 

The  Church  must  Openly  Confess  All  Articles  of  Faith 272 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Doctrine  of  God. 
Introductory. — Only  Certain  Phases  of  the  Doctrine  Discussed  by 

l,uther 274 

I .  Nature  and  Attributes. 

Two  Controlling  Ideas :  The  Hidden  God  of  Majesty  and   the   Re- 
vealed God  of  Love 275 

Revealed  Attributes — 

Omnipotence 281 

Omnipresence 282 

Eternity 282 

Omniscience — Immutable  Decrees 283 

Holy  Zeal  against  Sin 283 

Love — Revealed  in  Christ 284 

Expressed  in  the  term,  "  Righteousness  of  God  " 286 

Extends  to  All  Men  (Advance  upon  Earlier  View) 287 

Punishes  only  when  Necessary,  using  the  Devil  as  Agency    .    .  289 

The  Hidden  God. — Incomprehensible 292 

Divine  Commandments,  Judgments,  Secret  Will 294 

Absolute  Decree  Inscrutable 294 


X  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

PACE 

No  Attempt  to   Reconcile   Hidden  and   Revealed  Will,  but   Later 

Writings  Lay  More  Stress  upon  the  Latter 295 

2.  The  Tiittity. 

Plainly  Revealed  only  through  the  Incarnation 310 

Clearly  Established  by  Scripture 312 

Objections  of  Reason  Dismissed 313 

The  Son  as  the  Word ; — As  Likeness  of  the  Father 314 

Birth  of  the  Son ;   Procession  of  the  Spirit 316 

Pre-eminence  of  the  Father 316 

Work  of  Each  Person  is  Work  of  the  Entire  Godhead 317 

Attributes  of  Each  Person 318 

Analogies  in  Nature,  etc 315 

CHAPTER  III. 
Creation  and  Providence. 

Creation  Out  of  Nothing.     Time  then  Began 321 

Huiisht '   for  All  Time,  save  as  Sin  Caused  Creation  of  Thorns,  Tenden- 
cies to  Disease,  etc.  .  , 322 

Providential  Care.     All  Things  Originally  Good 323 

Man 324 

Angels  and  their  Ministry 324 

Works  of  Nature  as  Mediums  of  Divine  Agency 327 

Miracles 329 

Portents 330 

Devil  and  Evil  Angels — 

Character,  Origin  and  Works 331 

Subjection  to  God 335 

Relation  to  Human  Depravity 336 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Natural  State  of  Man  Before  and  Since  the  Fall. 

Original  Right  Will  and  True  Knowledge  of  God 339 

Physical  and  Spiritual  Perfections 339 

Dominion  over  Nature 340 

Divine  Image.     Original  Righteousness 34I 

Elements  of  Divine  Worship.     Submission  to  Divine  Will 343 

The  First  Sin 344 

Nature  of  Sin  in  General 345 

Original  Sin.     Its  Transmission 346 

State  of  Sin. 

Understanding,  Wiil,  and  Bodily  Powers  Weakened 350 

Sin  no  Part  of  Essential  Nature  of  Man 352 

The  Will  in  Bondage  to  Satan 355 

Capacity  for  Secular  Affairs 356 

All  under  Condemnation  of  Eternal  Death 358 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XI 

PAGE 

Intermediate  Section.    Transition  to  the  General  Subject  of 

SalAtion  in  Christ. 
Relation  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  Revelations  of  Salvation.  359 
Salvation  in  Christ  Revealed  under  the  Old  Covenant  Through  Word  and 

Visible  Sign 360 

Advantages   under    the    New    Covenant :    Clearness,    Particularity    and 

Spirituality 3^2 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Doctrine  of  Christ. 
Introductory.— Intimate  Relation  between  the   Person  and  the  Work 
of  Christ. — 
Christ's   Work    includes    His   Sacrifice   and    His    Continued    Agency 

within  Us 3^5 

Involves  Both  His  Natures 366 

Its  Goal,  Mystical  Union  with  the  Believer #i    367 

Sacramenttiin  and  Exemplum 3^ 

Contemplation  of  the  Work  of  Christ  leads  to  the  Doctrine  of  His  Person.  369 

1.  The  Person  of  Christ. 

True  Divinity  and  True  Humanity 370 

Relation  of  the  Two  Natures 371 

The  Union  a  Mystery.     Necessitated  by  the  Fall 371 

The  Divine  Nature  not  Modified 373 

The  Human  Nature  Developed  and  Exalted 375 

The  Divine  Nature  does  not  Suffer;  yet,  "  The  Son  of  God  Suffers."  376 

Is  the  Body  Omnipresent  ? 377 

Inseparable  Union  and  Communion  of  the  Two  Natures 378 

Commnnicatio   Idioniatum 379 

Does  Luther  too  Highly  Exalt  the  Human  Nature  ? 385 

His  Peculiarity  Lies  in  his  Emphasis  upon  the  Persistence  of  the  two 

Natures,  particularly  of  the  Human  Nature,  in  the  One  Person  .  .  387 

2.  The  Work  of  Christ. 

Chiefly  Deliverance  from  Sin  and   Guilt,  involving  Subsequent  Con- 
quest of  the  Power  of  Sin 388 

Vivid  but  Unsystematic  Presentation  by  Luther 389 

Perfect  Holiness 391 

Obedience  to  Law  and  Subjection  to  its  Curse 391 

Bearing  of  Our  Guilt,  from  Incarnation  to  Crucifixion 395 

Made  a  Curse,  before  Men  and  in  Sight  of  God 396 

His  Suff"erings  an  Infliction  of  the  Wrath  of  God,  with  Subjection  to 

Power  of  the  Devil 398 

No  Guilt  of  His  Own  .    , 401 

Relation  of  the  Devil  to  the  Sufferings  of  Christ 402 

Relation  of  the  Law  to  the  Suff'erings  of  Christ 403 


XU  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Results  for  Us — 

Abundant  Atonement  by  Sufferings  and  Active  Obedience  ....  406 

Conquest  of  Sin,  Devil,  Law,  Death  and  Hell 409 

Relation  of  This  Conquest  to  the  Atonement 412 

Peculiarity  of  Luther's  General  Presentation 413 

Theory  of  Vicarious  SuTfifering 415 

Descensus  ad  Inferos 417 

Significance  of  the  Ascension 421 

The  Power  of  Christ's  Teaching 421 

Christ  as  Prophet,  Priest,  King 422 

CHAPTER  VL 

The  Appropriation  of  Salvation  by  Faith,  and  the  New  Life 

OF  THE  Believer. 

1.  Nature  of  Justifying  Faith. 

Firm  Trust  in  Mercy  of  God,  as  Revealed  in  Christ  and  Offered  in 

the  Word 425 

Explicit  vs.  Implicit 427 

Grasping  rather  than  Longing 427 

Cultivating  the  Christ yi)r  Us  though  Cherishing  the  Christ  in  Us  428 

Relation  to  Intellect,  Sensibilities  and  Will 430 

An  Element  of  Repentance 431 

A  Gift  of  God.      Fides  infiisa 433 

2.  The  Justification  Effected  by  Faith. 

Justification  embraces  the  Entire  New  Condition  of  the  Believer  .  .  435 

Emphasis  upon  Forgiveness  and  Acceptance 436 

Grace  as  the  Favor  of  God  vs.  Scholastic  Conception 437 

Infusion  of  Christ's  Life  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit 43^ 

Regeneration  Wrought  through  Faith 440 

Passive  and  Active  Righteousness 44° 

Progressive  Sanctification 44' 

Joyous  Sense  of  Forgiveness 442 

Faith  Itself  Secures  Justification" 443 

But  only  in  view  of  its  Object,  Christ 445 

Thus  throughout  the  Whole  Life 45° 

Gracious  Rewards  of  the  Justified 452 

3.  The  Life  and  Conduct  of  Man  in  the  State  of  Grace. 

a.  General  View  of  the  Life  of  the  Believer  on  Earth. 

Already  in  Possession  of  Highest  Blessing :  Cliild  of  God — Heir 

of  Heaven.     One  with  Christ 454 

Yet  Sin  still  Clings  to  Him.     Daily  Repentance 455 

Assaults  of  Temptation.     Buffetings  of  Satan 458 

Blissful  Inward  Experiences 460 

Assurance  of  Acceptance 4^2 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XIU 

PAGE 

b.  Life  of  the  Believer  in  its  Relation  to  Sin. 

Sin  of  the  Believer  is  Truly  Sin 465 

Sins  of  Weakness  and  of  Deliberation 466 

Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost 468 

Triumphant  Experience  of  Grace 469 

c.  Positive  Moral  Deportment  of  the  Believer  in  the  Various  Rela- 

tions of  Life. 

Fear,  Love  and  Trust  in  God 470 

Prayer 472 

Government  of  the  Body 472 

Fasting 473 

Bodily  Pleasures 474 

Loving  Treatment  of  Fellowman.     Preaching  of  Works  .    .    .  474 
Marriage  and  Family  Life — 

Sanctity.     Training  of  Children 477 

Concupiscence 47^ 

Marriage  with  Unbelievers 479 

Ecclesiastical  Sanction 480 

Political  Relations  and  Duties — 

Civil  Government  a  "  Hierarchy" 481 

Existing  Government  to  be  Acknowledged 481 

Object  is  to  Preserve  the  Peace 482 

Christians  May  Participate  .   v        , 483 

Confined  to  Sphere  of  External  Things 483 

Monarchical  Form  not  Essential 485 

Right  of  Resistance 485 

Duty  of  Clemency  in  Administration 486 

Endurance  of  Wrong  by  Subjects 487 

Essential  Liberty  of  the  Believer 488 

CHAPTER  Vn. 

The  Means  of  ..Grace. 
Introductory. — The   Holy  Spirit  Works  only  Through  the   Means  of 

Grace 489 

I.  The  Word. 

Channel  through  which  the  Holy  Spirit  Enters  the  Heart 490 

Relation  to  Those  who  Reject 492 

The  Oral  Word 494 

Retains  Power  when  Preached  to  the  Ungodly 494 

Place  of  the  Law  under  the  New  Covenant 495 

Why  yet  to  be  Preached 496 

Its  Specific  Nature 496 

Divinely  Given 497 

Civil  vs.  Spiritual  Use 498 


XIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

PACB 

Cannot  Produce  Evangelical  Repentance 498 

To  be  Kept  by  Believers 499 

How  then  is  the  Believer  Free  from  the  Law 500 

Fullness  of  Blessings  Conferred  by  the  Word 502 

2.  77/1?  Sacraments. 

a.  General  View — 

Signs  and  Seals  of  the  Divine  Word 502 

Chief  Thing  is  a  Treasure  Given  Us 503 

The  Word  makes  the  Signs  Effectual 503 

Not  Dependent  upon  Character  of  Administrant  nor  Faiih  of 

Recipient 504 

Precise  Divine  Appointment  Essential 504 

Sacramental  Character  Only  During  Administration 505 

Cannot  Benefit  without  Faith 505 

God  not  Bound  by  Them 506 

Signs  by  Which  the  Ciuirch  may  be  Recognized 506 

Supremacy  of  the  Word  . 506 

l>.  Baptism. 

Does  not  Efface  Original  Sin 507 

The  Forgiveness  Imparted  is  Perpetual 507 

Luther  Emphasized  at  first  the   Significance  of  the   Sign ;  after- 
ward, the  Word  of  Promise 507 

First  Effect  is  Forgiveness  of  Sin 508 

Implanting  of  New  Life 508 

Significance  of  Dipping  beneath  Water 508 

Efficacious  only  through   the  Word ;  not  through   Character  of 

Administrant 5^9 

Perpetual  Obligation 5'° 

Application  of  Principles  to  Infant  Baptism 510 

C.  The  Lord^s  Supper. 

What  is  the  Imparted  "  Gift  "  ? — 

Fellowship  of  Christ  and  His  Saints 5^2 

Forgiveness  of  Sins  in  Word  of  Promise 512 

The  Body  of  Christ 512 

Presence  of  the  Crucified  and  Glorified   Body 5'3 

Sacramental  Union  vs.  Transubstantiation 513 

Necessity  of  Word  of  Christ  and  Special  Appointment  .    .    .    .  514 

Presence  of  Entire  Godhead   a  Human  Inference 5^5 

How  far  Adoration  Permissible 5'^ 

Sacramental  Union  Only  During  Celebration 5^^ 

Particular  Benefits  for  the  Body  of  the  Communicant 516 

Seal  and  Pledge  of  the  Divine  Promise S'? 

Forgiveness  of  Sin 5*7 

Exaltation  of  the  Body  of  Recipient 5'7 


TABLE   OF    CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGB 

Why  Luther  Clung  so  Persistently  to  the  Words  of  Institution  .  519 
A  Memorial  and  Thank-Offering — Should  be  Publicly  Admin- 
istered      520 

Fellowship  with  Christ  and  Fellow  Believers 521 

d.  Absolution.     Private  Confession.     Excomnnmication. 

Absolution  Imparls  Forgiveness  of  Sins 521 

Dependent  upon   Power  of  the   Keys;  not  upon  Character  of 

Administrant 522 

Announces  Grace  of  God  to  Individuals 522 

On  What  Conditions  to  be  Administered 524 

Objective  Certainty 524 

Does  not  Follow  Forgiveness,  but  Imparts  it 525 

Involves  Preaching,  Baptism,  and  Lord's  Supper 525 

May  be  Administered  by  Laymen 5^6 

Private  Absolution  Is  the  Chief  Benefit  of  Private  Confession  ,  529 

Relation  to  Chief  Means  of  Grace.     Included  under  the  Word  .  532 

The  Binding  Key,  Excommunication 533 

To  be  Publicly  Administered 533 

Involves  Eternal  Perdition,  if  Rightly  Administered  and   No 

Repentance  Follows 534 

To  be  Employed  only  against  Open  Offenders 534 

A  Final  Admonition 535 

Designed  to  Lead  to  Repentance 536 

No  Other  Real  Sacraments 536 

CHAPTER  Vin. 
The  Church. 
The    Community   of    Believers.     Christ,    Its    Head.      Dependent   upon 

Means  of  Grace 538 

An  Objective  Reality 539 

By  What  Signs  Recognized  ? 

Chiefly  by  Presence  of  Word  and  Sacraments 54° 

The  Keys  Sometimes  Mentioned  as  Signs  of  the  Church 54* 

Special  Administrants  of  Means  of  Grace — 

Ordination 54^ 

Office  of  Ministry  Divinely  Instituted 545 

Special  Blessing  Attends  Regular  Ministry 54^ 

Ministers  not  Priests 547 

No  Obligation  to  Submit  to  Ministers  who  Teach  False  Doctrine  .  .  549 

Church  not  Dependent  upon  Ministry 55° 

Prayer  and  Endurance  of  the  Cross  also  Signs  of  the  Church   .    .    .    .  55' 
Sanctified  Lives  of  Believers  an  Unreliable  Sign  because   Imperfect  and 

Counterfeited 55* 

External  Orders  and  Ceremonies  not  Obligatory 55^ 

To  be  Adopted  by  the  Congregation  at  Large 553 


XVI  TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Consideration  for  the  Weak,  but  not  for  Wanton  Opposers 554 

Uniformity  not  Necessary .    554 

Mature  Christians  do  not  Require  555 

Concrete  Form  of  Pastoral  Office  :  Bishops,  Elders,  Superintendents,  etc.  556 
Characteristics  of  the  Church — 

Holy 557 

Embraces  Believers  in  All  Places 557 

The  Pillar  and  Ground  of  the  Truth 558 

An  Object  of  Faith  and  not  of  Sight 559 

Relation  of  Civil  Government  to  the  Church — 

Wide  Influence  of  Luther's  Views  as  Applied  to  Existing  Circumstances.  560 
Secular  Princes  called  upon  to  Summon  a  General  Council ;  to  Allow 

Free  Preaching  of  the  Word ;  to  Encourage  Evangelical  Measures  .     562 
Should  Secure  Preaching  of  the  Word  in  its  Purity,  and   Forbid  Blas- 
phemous Practices,  as  the  Mass,  etc 563 

Should  Preserve  Harmony  vs.  Schisms 564 

Large  Use  of  Such  Powers  by  Certain  Princes 565 

Luther's  Strict  Conception  of  the  Doctrine  which  may  be  Tolerated.  .  566 
No  One  to  be  Driven  to  Faith  ;  but  Attendance   upon   Preaching  may 

be  made  Compulsory 5^7 

Miscellaneous  Character  of  the  Congregations  thus  Formed 567 

Their  Right  to  Participate  in  Administration  of  the  Church 568 

They  must  be  Permitted  to  Participate  in  Exercise  of  Excommunication.  569 
Distinctness  of  Spheres  of  Church  and  State  Maintained  in  Theory  .  .  570 
Concrete  Organization  not  Luther's  Mission 57^ 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Last  Things. 

Eschatology  not  Thoroughly  Discussed  by  Luther 573 

Chiliasm  Rejected 575 

Early  Coming  of  Judgment  Day  Anticipated 575 

Intermediate  State — 

Purgatory  Rejected 57^ 

An  Incomplete  Condition 577 

A  State  of  Sleep 577 

Do  Torments  of  the  Wicked  Begin  at  Death  ? 57^ 

No  Mention  in  Later  Writings  of  Continued  Moral  Development .  .    .  578 

Sin  Finally  Expelled  at  Believer's  Death 57^ 

No  Question  of  Locality,  although  Local  Terms  Employed 579 

Judgment  Day.     Visible  Advent  of  Christ 5^0 

Hell  and  the  Ungodly S^l 

Final  Blessedness  of  Believers,  including  Bodily  Life 5^' 

Transfiguration  of  External  World 5^3 

Eternal  Sabbath 5^4 


BOOK    III   (Continued). 


PRINCIPAL  POINTS  IN  WHICH  AN  ADVANCE 
IS  MANIFEST  IN  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
LUTHER  AFTER  HIS  RETIREMENT  AT  THE 
WARTBURG:  DEVELOPED  IN  OPPOSITION 
TO  TENDENCIES  WHICH  APPEARED  UPON 
THE  TERRITORY  OF  THE  REFORMATION 
ITSELF. 


CHAPTER  II  * 

OPPOSITION    TO    THE    FALSELY    EVANGELICAL    SPIRIT. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

At  the  very  first  outbreak  of  the  fanatical  spirit,  by  means  of 
which,  in  the  pointed  phrase  of  Luther,  the  devil  hurled  himself 
upon  the  right  side  instead  of  upon  the  left,  the  full  significance 
and  magnitude  of  the  danger  thus  threatening  was,  as  above 
remarked,  recognized  by  the  Reformer.  We  have  now  to  observe, 
further,  that  he  ever  afterward  felt  himself  justified  in  recognizing, 
in  all  the  doctrines  and  persons  claiming  to  maintain  with  him  the 
general  evangelical  view  of  saving  truth,  but  to  present  it  in  a  purer, , 
freer  and  more  spiritual  form  than  he,  the  features  of  the  same 
spirit  which  he  was  compelled  to  combat  in  Carlstadt,  the  Zwickau 
prophets,  and  Mlinzer.  He  brought  this  charge  against  Zwingli 
with  peculiar  energy.  The  entire  character  of  his  controversy 
with  the  latter  was,  from  the  very  first,  determined  by  this  con- 
ception. There  was  certainly,  at  all  events,  an  actual  bond  of 
fellowship  between  the  varied  tendencies  of  the  character  now 
referred  to,  as  over  against  the  position  of  Luther,  whatever  may 
be  the  opinion  held  as  to  the  differences  between  these  various 
parties,  or  as  to  the  validity  of  the  claims  made  by  them  to  an 
equal   justification   in    their    own   appeal    to    the   Gospel.     For 

*  Chapter  I.  of  Book  III.  is  included  in  Volume  I.  This  has  been  done  in 
order  to  give  the  two  volumes  of  the  English  translation  a  uniform  size  and  at 
the  same  time  present  in  one  volume  the  entire  development  of  Luther's  views 
in  conflict  with  Roman  Catholicism.  The  present  volume  thus  embraces  only 
those  modifications  and  developments  of  the  Reformer's  doctrine  which  were 
occasioned  by  his  opposition  to  the  falsely  evangelical  spirit,  followed  by  the 
systematic  survey  of  the  positions  which  he  finally  attained.  In  order  to 
adhere  more  closely  to  the  original,  and  to  facilitate  comparison  with  it,  it  was 
not  deemed  advisable  to  change  the  Chapter  number,  although  the  present 
plan  involves  a  certain  awkwardness  in  beginning  this  volume  of  the  English 
translation  with  Chapter  II.  of  Book  III.  of  the  original. 

(19) 


20  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Luther,  the  characteristic  feature  common  to  them  all  was  that 
indicated  in  his  remark  :  "  The  devil  is  here  trying  to  make  us 
altogether  too  evangelical."  In  accordance  with  his  own  con- 
ception, we  therefore  here  speak,  in  general  terms,  of  the  "  falsely 
evangelical  spirit "  which  he  was  called  upon  to  oppose. 

We  embrace  in  a  separate  chapter,  as  one  whole,  the  entire 
development  attained  by  his  views  and  doctrines  in  conflict  with 
these  new  enemies.  Already  before  the  controversy  with  Zwingli, 
he  had  thoroughly  elaborated  his  principles  upon  all  the  chief 
questions  involved  in  the  general  agitation.  The  argument  with 
Zwingli  was  concerned  mainly  with  the  further  definition  of  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Accordingly,  our  review  of  the 
period  falls  naturally  into  1;,wo  sections. 

We  meet  at  this  point  a  serious  difficulty  in  the  historical  pre- 
sentation of  the  development  of  the  Reformer's  views,  especially 
in  regard  to  the  Theses  upon  the  Lord's  Supper  drawn  up  in 
opposition  to  Zwingli.  The  entire  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  and  even  that  of  the  nature  of  God  and  His  relation  to 
the  created  universe,  here  become  involved,  and  are  carried  to 
weighty  conclusions.  Yet,  in  our  historical  study,  we  have  thus 
far  found  neither  occasion  nor  space  to  present  these  subjects 
expressly,  or  in  their  inner  relationships.  They,  and  with  them 
also  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  Luther  now  presents  it, 
can  be  set  in  a  clear  light  only  in  a  systematic  presentation  of 
his  entire  developed  theology,  such  as  we  can  offer  only  in  the 
closing  portion  of  this  work.  Our  immediate  task  must,  there- 
fore, be  simply  to  present  distinctly  the  leading  ideas  of  Luther 
in  regard  to  the  sacrament  as  they  were  developed  in  the  course 
of  the  present  conflict.  The  significance  of  this  doctrine  in  the 
entire  framework  of  his  system,  and  the  basis  of  the  interest 
which  he  felt  in  maintaining  it,  will  require  our  careful  attention 
at  the  proper  time.  Various  separate  points  elaborated  in  the 
controversial  writings  directed  against  Zwingli  will  also  find  appro- 
priate place  in  the  final  systematic  review.  There,  too,  finally, 
we  shall  be  called  upon  to  present  in  a  comprehensive  way  his 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  and  of  God,  and  can  there,  as 
the  nature  of  the  case  requires,  present  them  before  the  full  dis- 
cussion of  the  doctrines  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  means  of 
grace  in  general. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  21 

Section  I.  Doctrines  and  Demands  Opposed  by  Luther  before 
HIS  Controversy  with  Zwingli. 

I.  The  Nature  and  Inner  Mutual  Relations  of  these 
Doctrines  and  Demands. 

outbreak    at    WITTENBERG CARLSTADT MUN2ER PRIESTLY    VEST- 
MENTS  HAND    OR    MOUTH COMMUNION    WITHOUT    CONFESSION 

FASTS PICTURES INWARD    ILLUMINATION INFANT    BAPTISM 

VIOLENCE DESTRUCTION    OF  THE  WICKED LAWS    OF    MOSES LAY 

ACTIVITY MYSTICISM MORALITY MAN'S    RELATION    TO    GOD 

UNBRIDLED    LICENSE    AND    FANATICAL    LEGALITY. 

From  the  latter  part  of  the  year  15  21,  that  spirit  which  Luther 
described  as  "  altogether  too  evangelical."  but  which  he  was 
fully  convinced  could  be  rightly  treated  only  as  a  spirit  of  false- 
hood, spread  with  rapidity  and  violence,  throwing  off  gradually 
all  disguise.  It  is  not  surprising  that  even  honest  confessors  of 
Christian  truth  were  deeply  agitated  by  it,  either  wavering  in 
their  own  estimate  of  its  true  character,  or  sorely  alarmed  at  the 
encroachments  of  the  hostile  power.  Very  remarkable,  also, 
from  a  historical  point  of  view,  is  the  varied  and  even  mutually 
contradictory  character  of  the  elements  which  here  combined  in 
one  general  movement. 

First  came  the  Disorderly  Assaults  upon  the  Afass- a.t  Wittenberg. 
Carlstadt  had  borne  a  part  in  these,  placing  himself  at  the  head 
of  the  movement.  The  fury  of  the  storm  was  visited  not  only  upon 
those  abuses  which  Luther  had  pronounced  an  abomination  and 
robbery  in  the  sanctuary,  i.  e.,  the  representation  of  the  mass  as 
a  sacrifice  and  the  denial  of  the  cup  to  the  laity.  Nor  were  the 
agitators  content  with  merely  abolishing  at  once  a  custom  so  easily 
brought  into  intimate  relation  to  the  sacrificial  theory  as  was  the 
elevation  of  the  host.  The  zeal  of  Carlstadt  led  him  to  assail 
also  the  customary  priestly  vestments  and  other  ceremonies.  It 
appeared  to  him  a  matter  of  grave  importance,  that  the  bread 
was  no  longer  placed  by  the  priest  in  the'  mouth  of  the  communi- 
cant, but  that  the  sacrament  should  be  "  received  with  the  hands." 
He  was  not  satisfied,  now  that  confession  to  the  priest  was  no 
longer  compulsory,  and  that  the  torturing  of  consciences  once 
associated  with  the  practice  had  thus  been  abolished,  but  he 


2  2  THE   THEOLOGY   OK    LUTHER. 

admitted  the  multitude  indiscriminately,  without  any  confession 
at  all,  to  the  privilege  of  communion.  The  liberation  from  all 
obligation  to  observe  the  fasts  appointed  by  the  Church  was  pro- 
claimed as  affecting  all  believers,  without  any  regard  for  those 
who  felt  themselves  still  bound  in  conscience  to  observe  them, 
and  the  actual  public  exercise  of  this  liberty  was  made  a  test  of 
evangehcal  Christianity.  Carlstadt,  at  length,  with  the  same 
passionate  energy  which  inspired  his  opposition  to  the  abomina- 
tion of  the  mass,  began  to  assail  the  pictures  in  the  churches, 
declaring  them  to  be  no  less  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God, 
namely,  the  First  Commandment  of  the  Decalogue. 

Next  appeared  at  Wittenberg  the  Ztvickau  Prophets.  The 
spirit  of  the  Reformation  had  broken  through  the  barriers  of  out- 
ward ordinances  and  of  the  supposed  human  mediation  of  salva- 
tion, in  order  to  place  the  believing  soul  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  its  God  and  Saviour.  There  now  arose  a  class  of 
men  professing  to  be  inspired  by  the  same  spirit,  and  to  have 
received,  also,  by  virtue  of  this  immediate  fellowship  with  God, 
direct  revelations  from  Him.  Instead  of  the  external  Word  of 
God,  which  they  regarded  as  a  mere  letter,  they  laid  stress  upon 
the  special  inward  conversations  which  they  professed  to  have 
with  their  God.  The  same  principle  led  them  to  deny  the 
validity  of  infant  baptism.  They  failed  to  apprehend  the  spiritual 
transaction,  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  baptism,  and,  in 
consequence,  adjudged  it  impossible  for  infants  to  appropriate 
the  benefits  of  the  ordinance.  As  Carlstadt,  who  had  already 
before  their  day  resorted  to  violence  in  opposing  that  which 
appeared  to  be  condemned  by  the  divine  Word,  now  entered  into 
willing  alliance  with  them  ;  and  as  he  had,  in  his  warfare  upon 
images,  appealed  to  the  Old  Testament  as  also  of  binding 
authority, — the  Anabaptists  now  sought  not  only  to  abolish  all 
abuses  by  violent  measures,  but  also  to  utterly  destroy  all  wicked 
men,  according  to  the  example  of  Old  Testament  zealots  and 
heroes.  It  was  thus  that  Miinzer  sought  to  become  a  genuine 
reformer.  Upon  the  bleeding  corpses  of  the  wicked,  it  was  sup- 
posed, and  especially  of  such  rulers  as  dared  to  resist  the  Spirit, 
the  true  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  established  on  earth. 

The  question,  whether  the  Word  of  God,  as  contained  in  the 
Law  of  the  Old  Testament,  must  not  be  acknowledged  as  the 
final  authority  also  in  the  sphere  of  all  secular  relations,  was  now 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  23 

prominently  agitated  in  yet  wider  circles.  We  have  already  seen 
Luther  (for  example,  in  his  Address  to  the  Nolu/ity)  extending 
the  scope  of  his  testimony  based  upon  the  divine  Word  to  the 
discussion  of  secular  conditions  and  grievances.'  His  indignation 
was  aroused  especially  by  the  usurious  rates  of  interest  demanded, 
and  by  the  general  course  of  the  great  merchants  and  moneyed 
men  of  the  day.  Now,  in  1524,  the  ministers,  Strauss,  in  Eisen- 
ach, and  Stein,  in  Weimar,  demanded  that,  in  accordance  with 
the  precepts  of  Moses,  the  taking  of  interest  be  entirely  pro- 
hibited. A  number  of  professional  jurists  also  enlisted  in  the 
movement.  It  was  maintained  that,  instead  of  the  imperial 
laws,  which  were  of  heathen  origin,  and  the  canonical  laws,  which 
originated  with  the  popes,  the  Mosaic  Law  must  be  re-established. 
Strauss  already,  in  a  published  sermon,  proposed  the  re-instate- 
ment  of  the  Mosaic  year  of  jubilee,  in  which  every  man  should 
regain  possession  of  his  alienated  patrimony,  a  proposition  which 
was  favorably  received  in  portions  of  Wiirtemberg. 

Returning  now  to  the  representative  of  this  tendency  who  had 
in  the  beginning  been  most  intimately  associated  with  Luther, 
namely,  Carlstadt,  we  shall  find  him  proceeding  to  yet  greater 
lengths  in  the  same  direction.  He  does  not  reject  infant  bap- 
tism ;  but  he  makes  the  essence  of  external  baptism  to  consist 
merely  in  a  public  profession  of  faith  toward  God  (in  A.  D. 
1523).^  He  then  assails  the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  rejects  entirely  the  idea  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  gift  of  God  to  men.  The  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  to  be  sought,  not  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  in  the  sacrificial 
death  suffered  once  for  all  by  Christ.  The  object  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is,  that  we  may  therein  celebrate  the  memorial  of  this  sac- 
rifice, be  led  to  a  vivid  apprehension  of  the  death  of  Christ  by 
means  of  "  the  cordial  z^Y>^t\\er\?,\on{das  freundliche E7-kenntJ7iss) 
of  Christ,"  be  buried  in  Him,  and,  by  an  "  ardent,  fervid  art  «of 
Christ,"  be  transformed  into  His  life  and  His  death.  Such  appre- 
hension of  the  death  of  Christ  is  to  be  inspired  in  the  celebration 
of  this  memorial.  He  speaks,  as  yet,  cautiously  in  regard  to  the 
right  and  duty  of  individual  believers  to  engage  in  the  public 

>  Vol.  I.,  p.  382  sq. 

'Cf.  here  and  in  the  following  connection  the  extracts  from  writings  of 
Carlstadt  found  in  Yager,  A.  Bodenstein  v.  Carlstadt,  1856  (in  this  case,  p. 
320).     Cf.  also  Dieckhoff,  Abendmahlslehre,  etc.,  I.,  299  sqq. 


24  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

preaching  of  the  Word  upon  the  authority  of  their  own  direct 
inspiration.  He  acknowledges  that  one  should  be  elected  to 
this  ofifice  by  his  fellow-believers.  But  he  claims,  upon  the  other 
hand,  that  there  is  a  universal  commandment,  requiring  all 
Christians,  as  ordained  priests,  to  make  known  the  name  of  God, 
and  to  proclaim  it  to  their  brethren.  l^He  is  not  willing  to  con- 
ceal the  Word  of  God  for  fear  of  committing  an  unavoidable  sin. 
He  openly  maintains,  further,  that  believers  in  general  should,  as 
far  as  possible,  take  active  part  in  the  violent  measures  against 
the  idolatrous  worship  of  images.  He  holds  the  prohibition  of 
images  to  be  as  truly  binding  forever  as  that  of  theft,  that  of 
spiritual  adultery  as  still  no  less  authoritative  than  the  injunction 
against  carnal  infidelity.  Wherever  Christians  have  the  power, 
they  should  pay  no  regard  to  any  human  authority,  but  should 
freely,  and  upon  their  own  responsibility,  overturn  whatever  is 
opposed  to  God.  How  far  he  was  now  prepared  to  go  in  his 
application  of  the  Old  Testament  may  be  inferred  from  the  case 
of  a  certain  man  who  was  led  by  his  advice  to  follow  the  example 
of  the  ancients  in  taking  a  second  wife.  Upon  hearing  this, 
Luther  remarked  :  Perhaps  they  will  circumcise  themselves,  too, 
by  and  by,  in  Orlamund.' 

What  a  strange  combination  of  contrary  principles  in  this  out- 
break of  the  "  altogether  too  evangelical  "  spirit !  Such  a  con- 
tempt for  all  things  external;  a  conception  of  the  sacraments 
which  regarded  them,  in  the  language  of  Carlstadt,  as  too  gross 
to  reach  the  depths  of  the  human  soul ;  a  bold  exaltation  of  the 
inward  above  the  outward  Word  :  and  yet,  upon  the  other  hand, 
this  harping  upon  trifling  externaUties,  such  as  the  taking  of  the 
sacrament  with  the  hands ;  this  falling  back  upon  the  letter  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  this  frantic  zeal  of  Miinzer  and  his  followers 
for  the  establishment  by  violent  means  of  an  external  kingdom  of 
God,  whose  abominable  and  carnal  nature  was  finally*  revealed  to 
the  world  at  Miinster. 

The  views  of  Carlstadt,  and,  no  less,  those  of  the  Zwickau 
Prophets  and  of  Miinzer,  were  developed  from  an  original  source 
whose  very  significant  and  powerful  influence  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  the  evangelical  views  and  reformatory  character  of  Luther 
himself  we  have  already  traced.     This  was  none  other  than  the 

» Briefe,  ii,  459. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  25 

principles  of  that  Mysticism  which  had  already  before  the  Refor- 
mation, amid  all  the  externality  of  the  prevalent  ecclesiasticism, 
pointed  out  to  spirits  of  a  deeper  mould  the  way  to  true  inward 
fellowship  with  God.  Nor  is  it  so  difficult  as  it  might  at  first 
appear  to  discover,  from  the  manner  in  which  these  early  Mystics 
proceeded  to  develop,  from  their  point  of  view,  a  consistent  con- 
ception of  Christianity,  the  point  of  transition  to  this  other  side 
of  the  intellectual  tendency  which  they  represented. 

"  Study  the  German  Theology,"  exhorts  Carlstadt  in  one  of  his 
writings ; '  and  we  recall  at  once  the  similar  recommendation  of 
Luther  at  an  earlier  period.''  Carlstadt's  fundamental  moral  and 
religious  demand  is  that  man  shall  sever  himself  from  all  created 
things,  that  he  shall  become  dead  to  the  creature  in  his  own  will 
and  allow  God  alone  to  work  all  things  within  him,  in  order  that 
he  may  at  length  become  completely  deified.  Miinzer  requires 
this  same  withdrawal  from  all  created  things,  which  he  describes 
as  a  refining  process  (^Entgrdbicng) .  We  are  here  again  reminded 
of  the  utterances  of  Luther,  in  the  years  preceding  the  indulgence 
controversy,  concerning  complete  self-renuneiation,  opposition 
to  everything  which  is  not  God,  and  the  sole  agency  of  God 
in  us.  The  great  difference  between  Luther  and  these  men 
centres  in  the  inference  which  the  latter  drew  from  the  prin- 
ciples indicated  as  to  the  significance  of  external  means  of  grace. 
According  to  their  views,  inasmuch  as  the  soul,  in  its  exaltation 
above  everything  external  and  created,  becomes  one  with  God, 
God  Himself  can  no  longer  bind  His  own  saving  agency,  nor 
the  impartation  of  salvation,  to  anything  whatsoever  of  an  exter- 
nal nature.  Everything  of  this  kind  must  prove  too  gross  to 
reach  the  depths  of  the  soul.  Luther  contended  against  any  such 
inference. 

Yet  it  was  by  no  means  merely  the  drawing  of  certain  infer- 
ences, or  the  refusing  to  do  so,  that  occasioned  the  controversy. 
We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  peculiar  character  which 
the  mystical  view  itself  at  the  very  beginning  assumed  in  the 
mind  of  Luther,  and  by  virtue  of  which  he  then  already  parted 
company  with  the  Mystics  of  the  Middle  Ages  in  his  theory  of 
salvation.  We  have  emphasized  especially  the  important  place 
assumed  in  his  view  by  the  ethical — by  the  moral  personality. 

^Jager,  333.  2  Vol.  L,  p.  135. 


2  6  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

We  now  find  the  direct  opposite  of  this  as  a  characteristic  feature 
of  Carlstadt's,  and  yet  more  distinctly  of  Miinzer's,  conception  of 
the  process  of  salvation.  The  moral  struggle  against  the  sin 
which  is  rooted  in  man's  own  will  and  brings  him  into  bondage 
under  created  things  becomes,  in  the  theory  of  the  latter,  a  mere 
empty  withdrawal  (abstraction)  from  the  finite  and  individual. 
This  runs  out  into  "  idleness  and  languor,"  which  are,  asCarlstadt 
says,  to  wear  off  the  coarse  integuments  of  the  heart  and  relieve 
its  constipation.  Then,  too,  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  man  is  no  longer  thought  of  as  the  impartation  of  a  per- 
sonal God  to  a  moral  human  personality.  But  is  not  such  an 
experience,  viz.,  a  personal,  ethical  intercourse  between  God  and 
man,  in  which  the  latter  receives  the  divine  truth  presented  to  the 
conscious  mind,  not  in  gloomy,  "  languid  "  brooding  and  wait- 
ing, but  in  personal  apprehension,  the  very  purpose  of  an  object- 
ively pi-esented  divine  Word?  In  the  case  of  Luther's  adversaries, 
at  all  events,  the  boasted  "  inner  Avord  "  was  always  found  in 
intimate  connection  with  the  above  unchristian  conception  of 
the  entire  relation  of  man  to  God. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  significance  allowed  or  denied 
by  the  ancient  Mystics  to  the  objective,  historical  Christ  and 
the  atoning  work  consummated  in  His  sufferings  and  death, 
a  significance  which  was,  as  we  have  seen,  always  maintained  in 
Luther's  conception  of  the  plan  of  salvation.  What  was  there 
said  as  to  the  failure  to  recognize  it,  or  the  actual  denial  of  it, 
applies  also  to  the  mysticism  of  Carlstadt  and  notably  to  that  of 
Miinzer.  With  this  the  doctrine  of  Carlstadt  upon  the  Lord's 
Supper  also  stands  in  close  connection.  He  points  back,  indeed, 
from  the  Holy  Supper  to  the  atoning  work  and  sacrificial  death 
of  Christ,  whose  memorial  is  to  be  here  celebrated.  But  he  does 
not  make  the  essence  of  a  proper  celebration  to  consist  in  the 
reliance  of  faith  upon  the  objective,  crucified  Christ,  but  finds  it 
directly  in  a  death  and  life  effected  by  the  "  fervid  art  "  in  the 
subject  himself,  which  is  typified  in  the  life  and  death  of  Christ. 
And  he  even  places  the  significance  of  the  sacrificial  death  of 
Christ  itself  in  the  fact  that  it  reveals  to  us  what  God  desires  vs 
to  do.  The  significance  of  the  Christ  for  us,  and  of  His  death, 
is  merely  that  of  a  type,  by  the  fervid  apprehension  of  which  the 
Christ  in  us  is  to  be  actualized. 

From  what  has  just  been  said  it  is  evident  that  faith  could  not, 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT    THE    WARTBURG.  27 

upon  the  theory  of  Carlstadt,  attain  the  specific  and  fundamental 
significance  which  it  has  for  Luther.  There  is  wanting,  not  only 
the  objective  basis  upon  which  faith  as  such  must  rest,  but  also 
all  proper  sense  of  that  moral  and  religious  relation  of  man  to 
God  in  which  faith  finds  its  essential  atmosphere.  Carlstadt's 
representations  of  the  relation  existing  between  faith  and  love 
are  altogether  confused  and  variable.  Both,  although  unification 
with  God  is  to  be  effected  in  them,  are  yet  swept  away  in  that 
bare,  negative,  abstracted  condition  in  which,  as  we  have  heard, 
the  soul  opens  itself  to  God,  Carlstadt  makes  of  both  equally  a 
"  spiritual  circumcision,"  by  means  of  which  the  heart  is  prepared 
for  the  reception  of  the  divine  love. 

Carlstadt  now  boasts  that  according  to  his  conception  of  Christ 
and  His  salvation  tlie  Gospel  is  vmch  ?icher  than  when  it  is  made 
to  consist  essentially,  as  in  Luther,  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (as 
resting  upon  the  objective  work  of  atonement  and  to  be  appro- 
priated in  faith) .  Where,  he  triumphantly  inquires,  is  there  room 
in  the  latter's  sj'stem  for  the  Gospel  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  of  the 
fullness  of  Christ,  of  the  rich  gifts  of  Messiah?  He  claims,  also, 
that  he  places  the  entire  process  of  the  appropriation  of  salvation 
in  a  closer  relation  to  Christ  Himself  than  is  done  by  Luther;  as, 
for  example,  in  the  whole  conception  of  repentance,  the  begin- 
ning of  which  Luther  traced,  not  to  the  effectual  working  of  the 
proclamation  of  grace  in  Christ,  but  to  the  office  of  the  Law  as 
over  against  that  of  the  Gospel.  According  to  Carlstadt,  repent- 
ance should  be  throughout  a  repentance  in  the  name  of  Christ. 
In  it  man  crucifies  his  own  life  through  the  apprehension  of  the 
crucified  Christ.  Not  the  Law,  but  the  apprehension  of  Christ, 
tears  the  heart  away  from  itself  and  its  sins.  But,  it  may  be 
asked,  can  the  individual  under  such  a  conception  of  the  subject 
secure,  or  be  certain  of  possessing,  that  without  which  there  can 
be  for  the  sinner  no  peace,  no  joy  in  God,  no  tnie  participation 
in  the  riches  of  grace,  /.  <?.,  the  very  endowment  now  in  question, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  connection  with  which  Luther  also 
])rofoundly  appreciates  all  the  blessings  incident  to  the  fellowship 
of  Christ?  The  truth  is,  that  the  significance  which  must,  in  any 
case,  be  attributed  to  atonement  and  forgiveness  was  not  at  all 
comprehended  by  Carlstadt.  And  how,  we  are  led  still  further 
to  inquire,  according  to  this  whole  conception  of  the  relation 
and  unification  between  God  and  man,  is  the  individual  to  actually 


28  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

attain  full  fellowship  with  Christ  and  the  secure  possession  of 
salvation?  Can  he  ever,  with  all  his  own  effort,  reach  that  state 
of  complete  severance  from  earthly  things  at  which  he  aims,  or 
complete  "  resignation"?  And,  in  so  far  as  he  does  attain  it,  will 
he  be  sure  of  the  indwelling  of  God,  and  not  experience  in  iis 
place  only  a  dreary  languor,  in  which  his  own  spirit  will  then  seek 
to  fill  the  void,  in  part  by  artful  and  forced  ecstasy,  in  part  by  a 
fanatical  zeal  for  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  midst  of  an  evil  and 
unbelieving  world? 

From  this  point  of  view  we  can  understand,  finally,  how  this 
professedly  so  free  and  wholly  inward  tendency  of  thought  could 
be  diverted  into  the  channels  of  a  new  externality  and  a  new 
legality ;  for  it  did  not  in  reality  attain  to  that  true  evangelical 
liberty  which  faith  enjoys  upon  the  sure  foundation  of  an  accom- 
plished atonement.  It  only  remained  to  be  seen,  therefore, 
Avhether  this  wrongly-apprehended  liberty  should  become  a  mere 
unbridled  license,  or  should  fall  back  into  a  new  form  of  legality. 
Both  results  are  exemplified,  side  by  side  and  mingled  in  inex- 
tricable confusion,  in  the  Anabaptist  agitations  of  the  day.  But 
it  was  not  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  which  gave  birth  to  this 
movement.  It  is,  much  rather,  essentially  at  one  with  agitations 
of  the  pre-reformation  period,  which  opposed  Catholicism  and 
yet,  in  common  with  it,  utterly  failed  to  grasp  the  central  princi- 
ple of  saving  truth  and  of  real  Christian  liberty. 

2.  TJie  Teaching  of  Luther  in  Opposition  to  these  Doctrines 
and  Demands. 

I.    THE    FUNDAMENTAL   DOCTRINE   OF   SALVATION. 
LAW    AND    GOSPEL POSITIVE    FAITH. 

We  have  already,  when  endeavoring  to  depict  the  steady  ad- 
vance of  Luther  against  the  entrenched  positions  of  the  Catholic 
ecclesiastical  system,  referred  to  his  opposition  to  the  revolutionary 
measures  of  the  Wittenberg  fanatics  in  regard  to  the  details  of 
public  worship,  fasts,  etc.  We  know,  too,  that  his  zealous  advo- 
cacy of  the  love  which  leads  the  strong  to  make  allowance  for  the 
prejudices  of  the  weak  was  not  a  new  departure  upon  his  part — 
not,  as  some  might  infer,  called  forth  by  alarm  at  the  outbreak 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  29 

of  violence.^  At  the  same  time,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Luther 
does  not  even  now,  in  the  interest  of  this  forbearing  love,  apolo- 
gize for  those  features  of  the  prevailing  worship  in  which  he  had 
hitherto  recognized  an  abomination  and  robbery  in  the  holy 
ordinances  of  God.  He  still  maintains  with  all  earnestness  that 
no  evangelical  Christian  can  again  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 
nor  celebrate  another  private  mass.  The  question  at  issue  is  not, 
whether  truly  believing  persons  should  be  advised  to  still  partici- 
pate in  the  "  abominations  "  out  of  love  for  others  and  for  the 
sake  of  peace,  but  whether,  among  believers  whose  faith  and 
apprehension  of  the  truth  are  yet  immature,  the  objectionable 
services  may  or  should  be  abolished  by  force  of  mere  authority. 
In  discountenancing  the  latter  course,  Luther  says  :  "  I  do  not 
wish  to  compel  any  one  who  is  without  faith,"  etc.  A  broad  line 
of  distinction  is  drawn  also  between  such  matters  and  things 
which,  while  not  essentially  evil,  are  yet  such  in  so  far  as  they 
are  made  a  positive  law  and  a  snare  for  the  conscience.  It  is  the 
observance  of  these  external  things  in  which  the  believer,  himself 
free,  may  out  of  love  for  others  restrict  himself.  Among  such 
things  are  to  be  classed  the  "  taking  of  the  sacrament  in  the  hand 
and  the  eating  of  eggs  and  meat."  This  is  the  "  trifling  fool's- 
business  "  of  which  Luther  speaks  at  one  place.'- 

But  in  the  case  of  Luther,  as  in  that  of  his  opponents,  we  must 
go  back  yet  further,  and  note  the  principles  which  lie  at  the 
basis  of  all  his  conduct  and  teaching.  We  shall  find  in  them 
nothing  but  that  with  which  we  have  already  grown  familiar. 
Even  in  that-  period  of  Luther's  development  in  which  he  was 
originally  and  most  deeply  influenced  by  the  earlier  Mysticism, 
there  was  always  a  clearly-marked  line  of  distinction  between  his 
view  and  that  which  formed  the  basis  of  Carlstadt's  theories.  It 
is,  indeed,  true,  that  the  conflict  induced  by  the  bold  assump- 
tions of  Carlstadt's  mysticism  served  to  bring  out  into  clearer 
light  the  mutually  contradictory  character  of  the  two  points  of 
view ;  and  Luther  was,  no  doubt,  thus  induced  to  emphasize 
more  strongly,  even  with  all  his  power  of  thought  and  expression, 
those  doctrinal  elements  which  he  himself,  although  never  under 

*  Cf.  e.  g.,  the  closing  paragraphs  of  the  pamphlet,  De  libertate  Christiana. 

'  Briefe,  ii,  121.  Cf.,  on  the  other  hand,  Schenkel,  Wesen  des  Protestant- 
ismus.     Second  Edition,  p,  44. 


30  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

any  circumstances  rejecting,  had  yet  never  specifically  developed; 
which  might  even  appear  to  be  retained  only  as  matters  of  inci- 
dental importance,  and  in  regard  to  which  it  might  be  seriously 
doubted  whether  they  could  actually  maintain  any  permanent 
place  in  his  doctrinal  system.  We  have  reference  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  external,  objective  means  of  grace  and  of  an  estab- 
lished external  order  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church. 

Luther  himself,  in  the  preface  of  his  pamphlet.  Wider  die 
himmlischen  Propheten^  conducts  us  at  once  into  the  depths  of 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  salvation,  embedded  in  which  are  found 
the  principles  which  furnish  ample  refutation  of  Carlstadt's  mys- 
tical theory  of  the  appropriation  of  salvation,  and  which  place  the 
seal  of  condemnation,  as  well,  upon  his  outward  and  violent  zeal. 

We  should  diligently  seek,  says  he,  to  discriminate  very  widely 
between  the  two  classes  of  doctrine,  namely,  that  which  treats  of 
the  principal  articles  of  faith,  teaching  us  how  to  govern  the  con- 
science within  as  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  that  which  merely 
gives  instruction  in  regard  to  outward  works  and  things. 

He  then  undertakes  to  enumerate  briefly  these  principal 
articles  of  Christian  doctrine,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one 
to  observe  before  all  else.  The  first  jplace  he  assigns  to  the 
preaching  of  the  Law,  by  which  man  learns  to  discover  and 
recognize  sin.  When  the  consciences  of  men  have  been  by  this 
means  alarmed  and  humiliated  before  the  wrath  of  God,  the 
comforting  Word  of  the  Gospel  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  should 
then  be  proclaimed.  These  two  articles,  which  are,  after  all, 
the  most  important,  are  found,  he  declares,  neither  among  these 
nor  among  any  other  false  prophets.  It  is  only  after  these  prime 
articles  that  Luther  places  "  the  judgment,  or  work,  of  crucifying 
the  old  man "  with  his  works,  and,  also,  the  sufferings  and 
tortures  in  which  we  by  self-discipline,  fasting,  watching,  working, 
etc.,  and  by  enduring  persecution  and  shame  at  the  hands  of 
others,  crucify  our  flesh.  Then,  further,  should  begin  works  of 
love  toward  one's  fellowmen,  performed  with  gentleness,  patience, 
etc.  Finally,  he  speaks  of  the  administration  of  the  Law — not 
for  believers,  but  for  the  rude  and  unbelieving  throng,  the  domi- 
neering multitude — bodily  and  harshly,  with  outward  compulsion 
and  the  sword. 

'Composed  toward  the  end  of  the  year  1524:  appeared  in  1525.  Erl.  Ed., 
xxix,  138  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE    WARTBURG.  3 1 

The  significance  attaching  to  this  view  of  the  separate  elements 
enumerated,  in  their  mutual  relations,  lies  for  us  in  its  direct 
opposition  to  the  teaching  of  the  mysticism  proclaimed  by  Carl- 
stadt.  The  most  important  feature  of  the  presentation  thus  given 
is  seen  in  the  position  which  is  assigned  to  the  message  of  grace 
as  such,  or  to  Christ  as  the  Reconciler  and  Saviour  (and  hence, 
also,  to  the  faith  which  appropriates  the  comforting  message), 
at  the  very  centre  of  the  system.  That  the  words  of  Christ  and 
the  history  of  His  life  and  sufferings,  as  rehearsed  in  the  pulpit, 
also  lead  to  the  knowledge  of  sin,  Luther  had  never  denied,  nor 
failed  to  acknowledge ;  but  the  commandments  of  Christ  and 
the  preaching  of  the  incidents  of  His  life,  in  so  far  as  they  have 
this  effect,  were  regarded  by  him  as  discharging  the  office  of  the 
Law.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  elucidate  this  point  more  fully 
in  Book  IV.,  especially  when  tracing  Luther's  refutation  of  the 
Antinomianism  of  Agricola.  But  Luther  discriminates  between 
this  influence  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  Gospel 
itself,  as  such,  or  the  message  of  grace  in  Christ ;  and  he  does  so 
the  more  carefully,  the  more  directly  it  becomes  his  aim  to 
present  a  pure  and  inspiring  testimony  to  the  latter.  It  is  only, 
in  his  view,  from  that  fellowship  with  Christ  as  the  Saviour  to 
which  the  Gospel  leads  that  there  can  result  any  effectual  cruci- 
fixion of  the  flesh,  just  as  the  power  and  inclination  to  any  posi- 
tively good  deed  can  be  derived  from  no  other  source.  He  now, 
likewise,  discriminates  with  great  care  between  this  crucifixion  of 
the  flesh  upon  the  part  of  the  believer  and  the  terrors  and  qualms 
of  conscience  awakened  by  the  Law  in  the  soul  of  man  before 
the  Spirit  of  grace  has  found  an  entrance  through  the  Gospel. 
He  thus  teaches,  it  is  true,  in  harmony  with  Carlstadt,  that  the 
crucifixion  of  the  flesh  must  be  achieved  in  Christ,  and  according 
to  His  example ;  but  he  claims  that  it  can  be  accomplished  only 
upon  the  basis  of  a  previous  reception  of  Christ  to  the  heart  as 
the  Reconciler  and  Saviour.  And  the  real  and  peculiar  organ 
for  such  a  reception  of  Christ  is  not  the  heart  as  having,  by  its 
own  effort  and  in  accordance  with  Christ's  example,  prepared  a 
place  for  the  Lord,  or  as  having  emptied  itself  to  the  point  of 
blank  vacuity,  but  it  is  the  heart  simply  as  believing  the  comfort- 
ing message  concerning  Christ  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is, 
in  other  words,  faith,  as  an  unconditional,  trustful  apprehension 
of  this  grace — in  which,  indeed,  is  implied  a  renunciation  of  all 


32  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

worthiness  or  good  in  self,  but  from  which  alone  can  result,  by 
means  of  the  grace  now  granted,  the  actual  conquest  of  the  flesh 
in  the  life  of  the  believer.  Thus,  the  difference  between  the 
significance  of  such  a  faith  and  that  of  seK-mortification,  resigna- 
tion, etc.,  in  the  appropriation  of  salvation,  has  now  been  dis- 
tinctly presented  by  the  Reformer.  The  distinction  had  been 
often  overlooked  by  him  in  his  original  devotion  to  the  mystical 
studies.  But  from  this  time  onward,  he  never  wavers  from  the 
position  here  so  clearly  taken.  Even  in  the  intervening  period, 
he  had  been  gradually  learning  to  apprehend  faith  in  its  true 
simplicity.  We  do  not  find,  for  example,  in  his  deeply  mystical 
treatise  upon  Christian  Liberty  any  trace  of  the  earlier  inter- 
change of  the  terms  faith  and  self-renunciation,  self-mortification, 
etc.  He  charges  upon  the  new  prophets,  that,  according  to 
their  teachings,  as  well  as  in  the  Romish  Church,  Christ  and  His 
everlasting  treasures  are  to  be  secured  through  works  (of  self- 
mortification).  But,  he  reminds  them,  no  one  can  follow  the 
example  of  Christ,  bear  His  cross,  etc.,  unless  he  have  first 
received  Christ  to  his  heart  by  faith.  This  treasure  is  secured 
through  the  Word,  /.  e.,  through  the  hearing  of  the  Gospel,  since 
we  learn  to  recognize  sin  chiefly  from  the  Word  of  God,  in  which 
the  Spirit  reproves  the  world ;  and  we  then  hear  the  Word  which 
announces  the  grace  of  Christ,  in  which  Word  the  Spirit  comes 
and  gives  (us)  faith.  Thus,  he  says  further,  with  special  refer- 
ence to  the  impartation  of  grace  in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  that 
memorial  of  Christ  which  Carlstadt  presented  as  a  substitute  : 
that  the  latter  makes  of  the  words  of  Christ  again  mere  com- 
mandments and  laws — of  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  a  work  which 
we  do ;  that  his  theology  rises  no  higher  than  to  the  mere  admo- 
nition to  follow  Christ ;  that  it  makes  of  Christ  only  an  example 
and  a  lawgiver.^ 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  211,  276,  278. 


AI'TER    KETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  33 

2.  OPPOSITION  TO  FALSE  EXTERNALITY  AND  DEFENCE  OF  THE  DIVINELY- 
APPOINTED  EXTERNAL  MEANS  OF  GRACE  AND  OF  EXTERNAL  ORDER 
IN    THE    CHURCH. 

A.  Opposition  to  False  Externality  and  Legality. 

FREEDOM    FROM    ORDINANCES MOSAIC    LAW   NOT    BINDING NATURAL 

LAWS    PERMANENT MOSAIC    LAW    AS    MODEL. 

Such  was  the  thoroughly  evangelical  point  of  view  from  which 
Luther  derived  the  consciousness  of  real  freedom  from  outward 
forms  and  ordinances.  He  felt  himself  free,  also,  in  matters  con- 
nected with  divine  worship  which  had,  indeed,  like  the  elevation 
of  the  host  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  been  hitherto  connected  with 
anti-Christian  practices,  but  which  could  nevertheless  also  be 
interpreted  in  a  Christian  sense.  We  are,  says  he,  free  and 
Christian,  and  can  therefore  elevate  the  sacrament  or  not  elevate 
it,  however,  wherever,  whenever,  and  as  long  as  we  please.  For 
the  express  purpose  of  bearing  public  testimony  against  the  dic- 
tatorial spirit  of  Carlstadt,  he  now  retained  the  custom  in  the 
parish  church  at  Wittenberg,  although  it  had  been  abolished  in 
the  convent  church.  He  took  the  same  position  in  regard  to 
the  clerical  vestments,  the  taking  of  the  sacrament  with  the  hand, 
etc.  To  those  who  thought  it  necessary  to  follow  strictly  the 
example  of  Christ,  and  not  merely  the  words  of  institution,  in  the 
observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  represented,  that  we  ought, 
upon  their  principle,  to  hold  the  meal  nowhere  else  than  in  a 
plastered  hall  at  Jerusalem.'  As  Luther  regarded  Carlstadt's 
theory  of  the  way  of  salvation  as  a  reinstatement  of  human  works 
in  the  place  of  grace  and  faith,  so  he  saw  in  his  insistence  upon 
external  things  a  tyranny,  in  no  wise  better  than  that  of  the 
Papacy.  The  abomination  sanctioned  by  Carlstadt  serves  no 
less,  he  declared,  to  disturb  the  consciences  of  men  than  the 
papal  prohibitions  of  food  and  marriage ;  for  eating  and  drinking 
are,  indeed,  but  trifling  external  matters,  yet  they  torture  the  soul 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  188  sqq.,  193.  Cf.  for  the  Christian  interpretation  of  the  eleva- 
tion of  the  host,  supra  Vol.  I.,  pp.  348,  351,  394;  and  also  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  68 
(A.  D.  1521).  Upon  the  elevation  itself,  cf.  Formula  Missae,  etc.  (1523), 
Jena,  ii,  590;  Deutsche  Messe  (1526),  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  241. 

3 


34  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

to  death  if,  through  a  multitude  of  laws,  the  conscience  be 
ensnared  therein.' 

The  assault  upon  images  gave  occasion  to  Luther  to  define 
clearly  and  positively  the  relation  of  believers,  rejoicing  in  the 
liberty  of  Christ,  to  the  outward  ordinances  of  Moses.  And,  from 
the  assurance  with  which  he  opposes  the  entire  tendency  in  this 
direction,  it  is  very  evident  how  clear  and  firmly-established  must 
have  been  his  own  convictions  and  his  comprehension  of  the  sub- 
ject before  the  outbreak  of  the  disturbances.^ 

At  first,  indeed,  he  merely  maintains  against  the  zealots,  that 
even  the  Decalogue  itself  prohibits  the  images  only  when  set 
apart  as  objects  of  worship.  Moses  interprets  himself  in  the  con- 
text, in  which  he  is  seeking  to  guard  only  against  idolatry,  and, 
still  further,  in  Lev.  xxvi.  i,  where  the  making  "  of  images  is 
distinctly  represented  as  preparatory  to  the  worshiping  of  them." 
Memorial  or  symbolical  images,  such  as  crucifixes  and  images  of 
saints,  are,  even  according  to  the  Mosaic  Law,  to  be  tolerated, 
and  are  even  regarded  as  commendable  and  honorable ;  as,  for 
example,  the  memorial-stones  mentioned  in  Josh.  xxiv.  27  and 
I  Sam.  vii.  12.'' 

But  Luther  then  undertakes  to  speak,  further,  as  a  Christian 
addressing  Christian  readers,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  new 
covenant.  Here  he  boldly  declares  that  Moses  was  given  only 
to  the  Jewish  people,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  us  Gentiles  and 
Christians.*  In  reply  to  an  inquiry  addressed  to  him,  he  had 
already,  in  1522,  declared  :  The  Christian  is  at  liberty  to  observe 
the  judicial  and  ceremonial  appointments  of  Moses,  but  he  is  not 
commanded  to  do  so.  He  then  refers  the  questioner  to  the 
Loci  of  Melanchthon.  He  expresses  himself  in  a  similar  way  to 
Spalatin,  in  1524,  in  regard  to  the  civil  law  of  Moses,  with  special 
reference  to  the  controversy  which,  as  we  have  seen,  had  arisen 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  148. 

"^  Under  different  provocation  and  from  a  different  point  of  view,  he  had 
expressed  himself  in  1523  in  regard  to  the  relation  to  the  O.  T.  Law,  in  his 
pamphlet,  Von  weltlicher  Ohrigkeit,  etc.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  74  sq.  Against  the 
establishmeni  upon  the  O.  T.  of  the  right  of  Christians  to  wield  the  sword  of 
civil  government,  it  had  been  objected  that  the  latter  is  no  longer  of  bind- 
ing authority.  To  this  he  replied,  that  it  is  abolished  in  such  sense  that  we 
are  no  longer  compelled  to  observe  it  under  penalty  of  the  loss  of  the  soul,  but 
that  we  are  free  either  to  observe  or  to  neglect  it. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  143  sqq.,  149  sq.  *  Ibid.,  p.  150. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE    WARTBURG.  35 

upon  that  subject.  Denying  that  the  latter  is  yet  binding,  he 
substitutes  for  it  the  actually  existing  law  (^nostra  jia-a  civilia, 
sub  qjtibus  vh'imiis) .  He  establishes  this  position  further,  upon 
the  basis  of  his  controlling  evangelical  principle,  in  a  formal 
opinion  rendered  in  May,  1524,  to  the  Elector  Frederick. 
Christians,  he  declares,  have  nothing  to  do  with  these  external, 
secular  things.  But,  in  so  far  as  they  are  called  upon  as  men  to 
take  part  in  such  affairs,  they  should  accommodate  themselves  to 
the  people  among  whom  they  live,  since  this  can  be  done  without 
endangering  faith.  More  definitely,  they  should  observe  the 
laws  of  the  government  which  has  been  providentially  placed 
over  them,  as  is  taught  in  i  Pet.  ii.  13,  17  ;  Rom.  xiii.  i.' 

Now,  however,  in  his  publication.  Wider  die  himmlischen 
Propheten,  he  presents,  in  the  most  comprehensive  form,  his 
opinion  upon  the  entire  question  concerning  the  Mosaic  Law ; 
and  it  is  from  this  document  mainly  that  we  must  derive  the 
material  for  our  study  of  the  present  period.  He  bases  upon . 
I  Tim.  i.  9  and  Acts  xvi.  10  the  proposition,  that  Moses,  with  all  I 
his  laws,  is  entirely  abrogated  for  Christian  believers.  He  takes 
issue  with  the  view,  that  this  is  true  only  of  the  ceremonies  and 
judicial  appointments,  of  the  ordinances  of  Moses  in  regard  to 
external  worship  and  government,  and  is  not  applicable  to  the 
Decalogue,  in  which,  it  is  said,  there  is  nothing  ceremonial  or 
judicial.  He  rejects  this  "  old  and  common,"  indeed,  but  yet 
ignorantly-made  distinction.  In  the  Ten  Commandments  are, 
much  rather,  included  all  the  others,  since  it  was. the  very  object 
of  Moses  by  means  of  the  ceremonial  ordinances  to  teach  the 
observance  of  the  First  Table,  and  by  means  of  the  judicial  ordi- 
nances, the  observance  of  the  Second  Table  (obedience  to  parents, 
marital  fidelity,  etc.) .  In  the  Decalogue  itself  God  has  expressly 
placed  two  ceremonies,  viz.,  images  and  the  Sabbath.  Whoever, 
therefore,  desires  or  thinks  it  necessary  to  keep  one  command- 
ment of  Moses  as  sjich,  must  keep  them  all,  as  Paul  argues  in 
Gal.  V.  3.  That  the  discussion  of  images  (Bilderei)  in  the  First 
Commandment,  and  no  less  the  Sabbath,  is  to  be  included  under 
the  heading  of  "  temporal  ceremonies,"  Luther  proves  by  the 
U'tterances  of  Paul  touching  holy-days,  or  Sabbaths,  according  to 
which  the  latter  are  a  mere  shadow  of  things  to  come,  and  are 

'  Briefe,  ii,  213,  489,  519  sq. 


36  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

now  no  longer  to  be  observed  (Col.  ii.  i6,  17  ;  Gal.  iv.  10,  11), 
and  by  the  expressions  in  i  Cor.  viii.,  according  to  which  "  idols 
are  nothing  in  the  world."  God,  says  Luther,  is  concerned  only 
about  the  presence  of  idols  in  the  heart,  that  is,  that  we  should 
not  worship  them  nor  trust  in  them.  The  external  idol  does  not 
hinder  our  conscience  nor  our  faith. 

But  how  then?  Since  the  Law  of  Moses  has  entirely  lost  its 
validity,  have  the  commandments  to  serve  God,  to  do  no  murder, 
etc.,  also  been  abolished?  To  this  question  Luther  replies,  that 
he  has  been  speaking  of  the  Law  of  Moses  as  such.  But  that 
man  should  have  a  God,  should  not  commit  adultery,  etc.,  is  not 
a  Law  of  Moses  alone,  but  also  a  natural  law.  Even  the  heathen 
have  knowledge  of  it.  It  is  written  upon  the  heart  of  every  man. 
Where,  now,  the  laws  of  Moses  and  the  laws  of  nature  coincide, 
the  Law  remains  in  force  (except  in  so  far  as  it  is  spiritually 
abrogated  by  faith,  which  is  nothing  else  than  a  fulfilling  of  the 
Law  (Rom.  iii.  28).  On  the  contrary,  image-making  and  Sab- 
bath, and  everything  which  Moses  has  appointed  in  addition  to 
the  natural  law,  is  now  abolished  and  a  matter  of  liberty,  having 
been  given  only  to  the  Jewish  people  specifically ;  just  as  when 
an  emperor  or  king  establishes  special  laws  and'  ordinances  for 
his  own  land,  such  as,  for  example,  the  old  law-code  of  Saxony, 
and  yet  the  common  natural  laws,  concerning  obedience  to 
parents,  etc.,  still  prevail  and  remain  in  force  in  all  lands.  We 
Gentiles  should  not  be  disturbed  by  introducing  among  us  the 
Moses  of  the  Jews,  just  as  France  does  not  have  the  law-code  of 
Saxony  and  yet  agrees  with  it  upon  questions  of  natural  law. 

If  we  now  turn  back  from  this  exposition  to  the  scriptural 
passages  cited,  viz.,  i  Tim.  i.  and  Acts  xv.,  we  fail,  indeed,  to 
discover  in  them  an  actual  basis  for  the  specific  argument  which 
Luther  here  presents  and  endeavors  to  establish.  They  carry 
us,  upon  the  one  hand,  too  far.  i  Tim.  i.  9  expresses,  also,  as 
Luther  himself  has  already  elsewhere  observed  but  does  not  now 
stop  to  note,  the  "  spiritual  "  abrogation  of  the  Law  for  the 
believer  as  such,  inasmuch  as  with  the  removal  of  his  sin  his  sub- 
jection to  the  Law  is  also  terminated.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  might  still  be  asked,  whether  the  whole  Moses  should  not  be 
nevertheless  retained,  at  least  for  the  mass  of  merely  nominal 
Christians — for  the  "  rude  and  unbelieving,"  or  "  the  Lord 
Omnes  " — and   even,   also,   for   true  believers,  inasmuch  as  the 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  37 

rod  of  the  Law  is  yet,  on  account  of  lingering  sin,  to  be  applied 
to  them  in  order  to  produce  a  knowledge  of  sin  and  repentance. 
But  Luther's  proof  rests  mainly  upon  the  express  utterances  of 
Paul  concerning  the  Sabbath  and  idols.'  And  we  find  the  deep- 
est basis  of  his  argument  in  his  conception  of  the  general  and 
essential  relation  of  man,  as  a  personal,  moral  spirit,  to  God. 
This  relation  cannot,  it  appears  to  him,  be  absolutely  and  with 
externally  binding  authority  determined  by  ordinances,  which 
aim  only  at  that  which  is  external,  bodily  and  temporal — not 
by  "  temporal  ceremonies,"  nor  by  anything  which  interferes 
with  conscience  and  faith.  In  so  far  as  such  ordinances  are 
instituted  in  the  course  of  unfolding  divine  revelation,  God  can 
have  given  them  only,  as  is  confirmed  by  the  citation  from  Paul, 
with  special  and  temporal  ends  in  view,  and  to  that  nation  to 
whom  He  was  then  speaking  through  Moses.  Whatever  He  has 
written  upon  the  heart,  however,  is  binding  upon  all. 

These  same  principles  were  soon  after  expounded  in  opposition 
to  the  "  fanatical  and  turbulent  spirits,"  especially  in  his  Sermons 
upon  Genesis^''  That  Moses,  even  in  the  precepts  of  the  Deca- 
logue, "  does  not  bind  the  Gentiles,"  he  there  proves  from  the 
very  words  of  the  Decalogue  itself  :  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God, 
which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  etc.  From 
this  it  is  clear,  he  maintains,  that  the  Ten  Commandments  do 
not  apply  to  us,  since  we  were  certainly  never  led  out  of  Egypt. 
He  then  again  appeals  to  the  abrogation  of  the  Sabbath,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  Paul.  The  Sermons  upon  Exodus, 
delivered  at  a  still  earlier  date,  should  be  examined  also  in  this 
connection.^ 

But,  even  in  connection  with  these  decided  views,  Luther  still 
concedes  to  the  peculiar,  positive  form  of  the  Law  under  Moses 
a  certain  abiding  significance.  He  declares,  for  example,  that 
he  nowhere  else  finds  the  natural  laws  "  so  excellently  and 
systematically  presented  as  in  Moses,"  where  they  are  epitomized 
"  better  than  the  Gentiles  could  ever  have  done  it."  "  Thus 
the  Ten  Commandments  are  a  mirror  of  our  hfe,  in  which  we 
may  see  wherein  we  lack."  He  even  wished  that  Christians, 
although  free  from  Moses,  would  yet  in  external,  civil  matters 

'  Cf.  Vol,  I.,  p.  358.  -i  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  9  sqq. 

*Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvi,  46  sqq.     Also,  in  the  year  1526,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  323. 


38  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

follow  his  example.  But  he  still  continued  to  maintain  that  this 
must  be  done  voluntarily,  through  the  regular  agencies  within 
each  nation,  /.  e.,  through  the  existing  civil  authorities ;  and  that 
the  peculiar  form  in  which  the  proper  authorities  of  any  nation 
see  fit  to  express  the  common  natural  law  is  for  the  citizens  of 
that  nation  obligatory. 

Before  this  New  Testament  conception  of  the  Law,  the  princi- 
ples of  Iconoclasm  are,  of  course,  totally  discredited.  Even  the 
breaking  of  idols  and  altars  by  the  Jews  does  not  imply  a  justifi- 
cation of  similar  conduct  upon  our  part,  as  the  former  "  had  at 
that  time  a  positive  commandment  of  God  for  that  very  work, 
which  we  do  not  have  in  our  day."  It  does  not  help  the  case 
to  cry  out :  "  God's  Word,  God's  Word."  The  question  is, 
whether  or  no  such  Word  is  addressed  to  thee} 

In  relation  to  the  Sabbath  or  Sunday,  for  the  celebration  of 
which  Carlstadt  had  in  a  similar  way,  without  further  justification, 
asserted  the  authority  of  Moses,  although  interpreting  the  de- 
mands of  the  latter  in  a  moderate  spirit,  Luther  quotes,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  passages  of  Paul  above  referred  to,  the  declaration  of 
Isa.  Ixvi.  23,  that  in  the  New  Testament  one  Sabbath  shall  follow 
another,  that  is,  there  shall  be  a  daily  Sabbath,  and  no  longer 
any  difference  between  one  time  and  another.  He  had  already 
before  the  indulgence  controversy  taught,  in  his  Sermons  upon 
the  Ten  Commandments'^  when  commenting  upon  these  same 
passages,  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  old  covenant  was  intended  to 
be  a  mere  figure  of  that  which  was  to  come,  and  that  the  Church 
had  retained  the  festival  under  the  instructions  of  the  divine 
Word  touching  the  weak.  In  like  manner  he  had,  for  example, 
in  the  Sermon  von  guten  Werkcn  (1520),  taught,  in  accord 'with 
the  above-cited  passages,  a  spiritual  celebration,  whereas  the  bodily 
observance  is  no  longer  required  of  us  by  the  Law  of  IMoses,  but 
is  only  yet  necessary  for  the  sake  of  immature  believers. 

The  Fanatics  now  impel  him  to  more  extended  and  still  more 
definite  statements  upon  the  subject — especially  in  his  Serjnons 
upon  Exodus.  The  proper  spiritual  Sabbath  consists  for  him 
(cf.  again  the  Sermons  upon  the  Deca/ogue)  in  a  celebration  by 
the  heart,  /.  e.,  that,  as  Christ  lay  in  the  grave  and  kept  Sabbath, 
KO  the  Old  Adam  should  rest  from  all  his  works  and  desires,  and 

'  Hriefe,  ii,  548.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  18,  36,  46.  ^  Vol.  I.,  p.  207. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  39 

Christ  should,  on  the  contrary,  so  Hve  in  us,  that  hands  and  feet, 
body,  soul  and  thoughts,  should  become  divine,  so  that  whatso- 
ever I  do  I  may  be  sure  that  God  is  doing  in  me.  Under  this 
category  Luther  includes  all  the  labors  of  Christians,  in  so  far  as 
they  are  performed  in  accordance  with  divine  instructions,  and 
as  the  former  know  that  such  labors  are  pleasing  to  God.  Every 
one  must  be  sure  of  this  in  his  own  case.  Thus,  a  servant  sweep- 
ing the  house  should  "  have  the  assurance  that  she  is  keeping  the 
Sabbath  properly  if  she  faithfully  executes  the  task  assigned  her." 
The  especial  observance  of  the  particular  day,  Sunday,  should 
also,  in  Luther's  view,  be  retained,  in  connection  with  the  continual 
Sabbath  observance.  The  basis  of  this,  again,  is  not  found  in 
the  Mosaic  ordinance,  but  in  a  universal,  natural  appointment. 
"  Nature  suggests  and  teaches  that  we  must  sometimes  rest  for  a 
day,  that  man  and  beast  may  be  refreshed."  "  Although  all 
days  are  free,  and  one  is  like  another,  yet  it  is  nevertheless  good 
and  useful — yea,  very  necessary — that  we  rest  (keep  holiday)  on 
one  day,  whether  it  be  Sabbath,  Sunday,  or  some  other  day.  For 
God  desires  to  rule  the  world  in  a  clean  and  peaceful  way.  He 
has,  therefore,  given  six  days  for  work,  but  on  the  seventh  day 
the  toilers — yea,  even  the  cattle — should  have  rest,  in  order  that 
they  may  thus  find  refreshment,  and  especially  that  those  who 
have  no  leisure  at  other  times  may  attend  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  on  that  day.  For  such  reasons,  namely,  from  love  and 
necessity,  Sunday  has  remained,  not  on  account  of  the  Command- 
ment of  Moses,  but  on  account  of  our  need,  in  order  that  we 
might  rest  and  learn  the  Word  of  God."  Against  the  view,  that 
we  are  bound  by  the  Mosaic  Law  to  the  observance  of  the  day, 
Luther  advances  also  the  further  objection,  that  we  would  then 
have  to  observe  Saturday,  and  not  Sunday ;  but  such  celebration 
is  not  enjoined  in  any  passage  of  the  New  Testament.  If  he 
then  still  designates  it  as  God's  own  will  that  we  should  reserve 
the  seventh  day  for  rest,  we  can  understand  this,  in  harmony  with 
the  context,  only  of  such  r<,  divine  will  as  is  revealed  in  the  exist- 
ence of  a  universal  natural  necessity.  Reference  is  made  to 
Moses  in  the  connection,  inasmuch  as  he  also  points  us  back  to 
this  general  provision.  "  That  which  nature  suggests  and  teaches  " 
is,  moreover,  in  Luther's  conception,  by  no  means  so  general  and 
absolutely  binding  a  requirement  as  the  fundamental  moral 
requirements  affecting  the  inner  life  of  man.     He  suggests  it  as 


4©  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

possible  for  one  to  secure  in  some  other  way  the  needed  leisure 
for  the  study  or  hearing  of  the  divine  Word ;  or,  again,  that  some 
should  not  stand  in  need  of  the  rest  thus  provided  for.  He  even 
says  openly  :  If  the  Sabbath  is  kept  for  the  sake  of  the  rest  which 
it  affords,  then  it  is  also  clear  that  he  who  does  not  need  the  rest 
may  violate  the  Sabbath  and  rest  on  some  other  day,  as  nature 
may  require.  He  points  to  Matt.  xii.  i  sqq.  and  Mk.  iii  2  sqq., 
where  Christ  subordinates  the  Sabbath  to  man.^ 

Luther  would  have  the  Mosaic  Law  regarded  as  an  example, 
also,  in  the  sense  above  indicated,  in  its  provisions  con- 
cerning usury  and  interest.  Even  in  his  earlier  criticisms  and 
complaints  in  regard  to  prevalent  practice  in  the  collection  of 
interest,'^  he  had  appealed,  not  to  any  binding  Old  Testament 
precept,  but  to  "  the  natural  law  and  the  law  of  Christian  love." 
He  now  classes  this  among  the  particulars  in  which  it  w'ould  be . 
well  to  follow  Moses.  He  means  to  say  that,  instead  of  the 
modern  method  of  computing  interest,  it  might  be  collected  after 
the  manner  of  the  Mosaic  tithes,  /.  e.,  instead  of  a  definite,  un- 
varying percentage  upon  capital  loaned,  the  debtor  might  be 
required  to  pay  a  tithe  of  the  variable  profits  realized  in  any 
given  year  from  the  capital  which  he  has  invested  in  land,  cattle, 
etc.  But,  while  suggesting  this,  he  always  repeats  the  statement, 
that  it  is  at  the  option  of  the  rulers  of  the  land  and  the  Emperor 
to  follow  this  example  or  not,  as  they  may  deem  best.  Mean- 
while, creditors  have  always  full  liberty  to  decide  whether  or  no 
they  will,  for  the  sake  of  the  Gospel,  forego  their  legal  rights 
and  abandon  the  collection  of  interest ;  the  authoritative  law 
being  that  of  the  land,  and  not  the  ordinance  of  Moses.''  The 
Mosaic  provision,  "  that  no  one  should  sell  his  land  absolutely, 
but  only  until  the  following  year  of  jubilee,"  appeared  to  Luther 
also  worthy  of  careful  consideration,  as  he  thought  it  desirable 
that  property  should  remain  within  the  relationship.  He 
instances  also  the  requirement  of  levirate  marriage  as  "  an  excel- 
lent {feiii)  commandment."  He  approved,  likewise,  the  civil 
law  which  God  gave  to  His  people  for  the  punishment  of  stealing. 

'Op.    Ex.,   Erl.    xii,  71    sq.     Erl.    Ed.,   xx,  247  sqq.;    xxix,    157;     xxxvi, 
92  sqq.  ;   xxxiii,  10. 

•  Thus  in  Erl.  Ed.,  xx,  109,  116. 

"Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  157;    xxxiii,  11.     Briefe,  ii,  657  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  4 1 

All  these  commendatory  utterances,  however,  are  to  be  inter- 
preted in  such  a  way  as  not  to  conflict  with  the  principle  main- 
tained by  Luther  in  the  controversy  with  Carlstadt.  Thus,  for 
example,  to  the  question,  how  adulterers  should  be  punished,  he 
replied  simply,  "  that  the  Law  of  Moses,  commanding  that  they 
be  stoned,  was  given  only  to  the  Jews.  We,  who  have  Gentile 
rulers,  are  in  duty  bound  to  conform  our  conduct  to  the  law  and 
precepts  of  the  latter.' 

B.  Defence  of  the  Objectivity  of  the  True  Means  of  Grace  and  of 
a  Proper  Ecclesiastical  Order. 

NO  CHANGE  OF  PRINCIPLES NEW  APPLICATION. 

Thus  did  Luther  maintain  against  the  new  Fanatics  the  same 
spiritual  principles  of  Evangelical  Christianity  which  he  had  been 
led  to  espouse  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  system  of  human 
ordinances. 

The  same  Spirit  and  saving  grace  which  assured  for  him  the 
freedom  of  the  believer  from  outward  works  and  laws  he  now  re- 
gards as  bound,  in  the  imparting  of  salvation  to  man,to  the  signs, 
pledges  and  means  which  have  been  appointed  by  God  for  this 
purpose,  but  whose  validity  was  denied  by  these  new  adversaries. 
In  defending  these  objective  ordinances,  he  knows  himself  to  be, 
in  so  far  at  least,  in  accord  with  the  entire  body  of  the  Church 
from  its  origin,  but  continues  nevertheless  his  opposition  to  all 
the  additions  which  had,  here  too,  been  made  to  the  genuine 
divine  ordinances,  acknowledging  as  means  of  grace  only  the 
Word,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  became,  therefore, 
incumbent  upon  him  to  define  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments, 
particularly  that  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  many  particu- 
lars still  more  accurately.    / 

At  the  same  time,  the  conflict  against  the  fanatical  theories  led 
to  a  discussion  of  the  entire  ecclesiastical  order  to  be  observed  in 
the  application  and  administration  of  these  means,  that  no 
offence  might  be  given  to  the  will  of  Him  who  has  revealed 
Himself  as  a  God  of  peace,  propriety  and  order — and  this,  also, 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  arbitrary  subjectivity  and  presumption 
of  the  new  prophets.     In  this  direction  especially,  we  shall  find 

'  ErI.  Ed.,  xxix,  157;  xxxiii,  II  sq.      Briefe,  ii,  508  sq.;  vi,  52  sq. 


42  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  Reformer  advancing  also  to  new  and  more  precise  definitions 
of  his  doctrinal  views. 

Here,  as  elsewhere,  our  presentation  of  the  facts  in  the  case 
must  be  unprejudiced  and  purely  historical,  as  we  follow  the 
course  which  Luther  himself  pursued,  proceeding  from  his  original 
principle,  which  embraced  already  a  clear  recognition  of  the 
objectivity  now  so  strongly  advocated,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
influenced  by  definite  historical  circumstances  which  impelled 
him  chiefly  in  one  direction.  It  is  not  our  province  to  proffer 
dogmatic  criticisms  upon  that  course  itself.  We  must,  however, 
from  the  very  outset  keep  in  view,  as  of  the  very  highest  import- 
ance, the  striking  fact  (which  dogmatic  criticism  must  also  partic- 
ularly observe  when  treating  of  the  period)  that  all  the  elements 
which  Luther  found  occasion  to  antagonize  in  the  interest  of  a 
true  objective  mediation  of  grace  met  him,  from  the  very  beginning, 
in  most  intimate  combination,  in  the  principles  avowed  by  those 
whom  he  was  accustomed  to  describe  as  "  fanatical  spirits." 
We  instance  the  denial  of  the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  both  of 
which  were  found  in  immediate  connection  with  a  low  estimate  of 
the  external  Word,  with  a  perverted  view  of  the  believer's  fellow- 
ship with  God,  and  with  the  abolition  of  all  ecclesiastical  order — 
indeed,  with  the  attempted  destruction  of  all  human  and  moral 
order  whatsoever.  Already,  in  the  case  of  Carlstadt,  he  regarded 
it  as  "  the  final  purpose  "  to  abolish  the  entire  sacrament  and 
the  whole  external  order  instituted  by  God.  Instead  of  this,  he 
witnessed  the  attempt  of  these  presumptuous  fanatics  to  sub- 
stitute this  new,  wretched,  external,  human  invention  :  "  They 
make  a  human  work  out  of  that  which  God  ordains  as  inward 
faith  and  spirit :  they  make  an  inward  spirit  out  of  that  which 
God  ordains  as  an  outward  word  and  sign.  They  go  out,  there- 
fore, as  the  devil  does,  where  God  wants  them  to  go  in,  and  they 
go  in  where  God  wants  them  to  go  out."  The  result  of  such  a 
course  could  only,  in  his  judgment,  be  that  they,  while  refusing 
to  tolerate  anything  external,  should  be  "  utterly  drowned  in  the 
flesh."  '  The  historical  connection  thus  revealed  can  alone 
entirely  account  for  the  zeal  with  which  Luther  now  presents, 
fortifies  and  maintains  his  positions  upon  every  single  point  of 
the  doctrines  involved. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  260,  211 ;  xxx,  136. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURU.  43 

Among  modern  critics,  those  who  fully  coincide  with  the  opin- 
ions maintained  by  Luther  against  the  "  Fanatics,"  as  well  as 
those  who  disapprove  and  lament  the  position  thus  taken  by 
him,  feel  constrained,  for  the  most  part,  to  emphasize  as  strongly 
as  possible  the  difference  between  the  principles  now  announced 
and  those  formerly  avowed  by  the  Reformer.  We  have  recog- 
nized in  advance  the  really  new  elements  furnished  by  the  present 
historical  period  for  Luther's  development  and  doctrinal  com- 
pleteness. But  we  must  also  in  advance  declare,  in  view  of  what 
has  already  been  observed,  that  the  difference  referred  to  has 
been,  for  the  most  part,  greatly  exaggerated.  Those  declarations 
of  the  earlier  Luther  which  form  the  points  of  attachment  for  the 
later  utterances  are  too  often  overlooked.  Consider,  for  instance, 
his  laudation  of  the  Word  in  the  tract  upon  Christian  Liberty  ; 
his  resolute  defence  of  infant  baptism  in  such  a  publication  as 
that  upon  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  formulated  before  any  of 
the  perils  of  the  Anabaptist  movement  had  appeared ;  his  per- 
sistent maintenance  of  the  true  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment at  a  time  when  the  denial  of  it  would  have  seemed  to 
furnish  a  most  powerful  weapon  against  the  mass  and  the  Papacy, 
and  one  of  which  no  suspicious  characters  had  as  yet  availed 
themselves ;  the  order-loving  spirit  which  moved  him,  in  the 
Address  to  the  Nobility,  so  loudly  denounced  as  "  revolutionary," 
to  demand  a  regular  call  as  a  necessary  prerequisite  for  the 
preaching  of  the  Word,  and  to  summon  to  the  aid  of  the  Refor- 
mation itself  regular  public  agencies  in  the  persons  of  princes  and 
nobles.  The  closing  portion  of  our  review  of  this  period  will 
make  abundantly  manifest  how  strikingly  his  fundamental  estimate 
of  the  Church  was  also  afterwards  maintained  intact. 

a.  The  Means  of  Grace  in  General — Particularly  the  Word. 

GOD    DEALS    WITH    US    INTERNALLY BUT    ONLY    THROUGH    EXTERNAL 

MEANS. 

God,  says  Luther,  deals  with  us  in  two  ways,  externally  and 
internally — externally,  through  the  spoken  word  of  the  Gospel 
and  through  material  signs,  such  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper ;  internally,  through  the  Holy  Spirit  and  faith,  together 
with  other  spiritual  gifts  :   and  He  does  so  in  conformity  with  the 


44  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

principle,  that  the  external  should  and  must  always  precede  and 
the  internal  follow,  the  latter  being  mediated  through  the  former, 
since  He  has  determined  that  He  will  bestow  the  internal  gifts 
upon  no  man  save  through  the  external.  He  will  not  grant  the 
Spirit,  nor  faith,  to  any  one  without  the  external  Word  and  sign 
which  He  has  instituted  for  the  purpose,  as  He  says  in  Lk.  xvi. 
29  :  "  Let  them  hear  Moses  and  the  prophets."  Hence,  St.  Paul 
can  call  baptism  a  washing  of  regeneration,  in  which  God  richly 
pours  out  the  Holy  Spirit  (Tit.  iii.  5-7),  and  the  preached  Gospel 
a  divine  word,  which  saves  all  who  believe  it  (Rom.  i.  16).' 

Here,  too,  he  again  gives  pre-eminence  to  the  Word.  Upon 
this  primarily  depends  for  him  the  entire  genuine  process  of  inter- 
course between  God  and  men,  and  thus  also  distinctively  salvation 
itself,  as  tendered  to  us  from  above,  and  not  as  an  achievement 
to  be  attained  by  effort  originating  with  ourselves.  He  inquires 
by  what  means  one  may  be  initiated  into  the  lofty  spirit  of  the 
Heavenly  Prophets.  They  do  not  point  inquirers  to  the  external 
Word,  but  direct  them  to  the  fools"  paradise,  when  they  say  : 
"  Stand  still  in  idle  vacuity,"  etc.  They  tear  away  the  ladder  by 
means  of  which  the  Spirit  must  come  to  us.  They  do  not  profess 
to  teach  how  the  Spirit  may  come  to  us,  but  how  we  may  come 
to  the  Spirit,  so  that  we  may  learn  to  walk  on  the  clouds  and  ride 
upon  the  wind.^ 

Although,  in  the  passage  just  cited,  only  the  Word  of  the  Gospel 
is  specifically  mentioned,  it  is  clear,  from  our  previous  investiga- 
tions, that  the  Word  of  the  Law  as  a  divinely-appointed  means  is 
not  excluded.  Already  in  the  latter  Luther  recognizes  the  effect- 
ive working  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Through  it  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to 
discharge  the  punitive  functions  of  His  office.  It  is  not,  however, 
able  to  impart  the  Spirit  to  us ;  this  being  the  distinctive  office 
of  the  Gospel.^ 

Although  maintaining  that  Word  and  Spirit  must  always  go 
together,  Luther  does  not  enter  into  any  more  detailed  statement 
of  the  mutual  relations  of  the  two.  He  does  not  attempt  to 
explain  precisely  why  the  Spirit,  who  refuses  to  work  except 
through  the  Word,  yet  fails  to  actually  effect  salvation  in  all  who 
hear  the  Word.  We  have  already  at  an  earlier  period,  when 
tracing   Luther's  doctrine    of   free  will,  quoted   the   proposition 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  208.  "■'  Ibid.,  p.  209  sq.  » Ibid.,  p.  212. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  45 

which  we  now  find  again  in  his  publication  against  the  Prophets, 
/.  e. :  In  the  Word  the  Spirit  comes,  and  gives  faith,  where  and 
to  whom  He  will.  This  same  proposition  recurs  not  only  in  the 
Marburg  Articles,  but  also,  in  1529,  in  the  Schwabach  Articles} 


b.  Infant  Baptism  and  Baptism  in  Ge7ieral. 

FAITH  OF  PARENTS  OR  SPONSORS INFANT  BAPTISM    ENDORSED  BY  THE 

CHURCH CHILDREN    HAVE  FAITH DIVINE  AUTHORITY OBJECTIVE 

VALIDITY ANABAPTISM ZWINGLI    AND    BUCER. 

In  the  discussions  of  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  by  the 
Reformer,  the  question  of  infant  baptism  was,  in  consequence  of 
the  assaults  of  the  Anabaptists,  kept  in  the  foreground. 

Luther,  as  observed  above,^  was  by  no  means  astonished  when 
the  Zwickau  prophets  began  to  assail  this  ordinance ;  and  the 
theory  with  which  he  proposed  to  meet  and  repel  the  attack  was, 
in  its  chief  features,  none  other  than  that  which  he  had  already 
advanced  in  1520.''  We  must  infer  that,  at  the  time  when  he 
formulated  this  theory  for  himself  and  substituted  it  for  the  tradi- 
tional one,  the  objections  which  might  be  urged  against  infant 
baptism  in  general  had  suggested  themselves  to  his  own  mind 
and  been  satisfactorily  answered.  He  could  now,  therefore, 
regard  them  without  dismay  when  presented  by  others. 

Upon  learning,  through  the  sorely  agitated  Melanchthon,  of 
the  protest  of  the  Zwickau  agitators  against  infant  baptism,  Luther 
immediately  replied  (January  13,  1522),  laying  all  stress  again 
in  his  counter-argument  upon  the  faith  of  those  who  prayerfully 
present  the  children  for  baptism.  The  promise  of  Christ,  in 
Matt,  xviii.  19,  he  declares,  stands  immovable.  Christ  never 
repelled  any  one  who  was  brought  to  Him  upon  the  faith  of 
others.  For  this,  we  have  the  testimony  and  examples  of  the 
whole  Scriptures.     Everything  is  possible  to  him  that  believeth. 

Luther  then  takes  up  the  question,  whether  it  is  really  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  that  faith  is  thus  infused  into  children. 
He  does  not  at  this  point  wish  to  decide  whether  the  faith  or 
doctrine  of  the  Church  at  large  is  itself,  as  such,  an  evidence  for 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  212;  Ixv,  90;   xxiv,  325. 
2 Vol.  I.,  p.  442.  'Ibid.,  p.  399  sq. 


46  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  truthfulness  of  the  position  held  (upon  this  point,  see  below) , 
but,  for  the  present,  he  merely  seeks  to  show  that  the  Church  at 
large  really  holds  this  view.  Being  as  yet  but  imperfectly  informed 
as  to  the  arguments  presented  by  the  objectors  of  Zwickau,  he 
presumes  that  the  controversy  may  perhaps  in  this  way  involve 
the  Church  and  its  relation  to  the  question.  He,  accordingly, 
appeals  to  the  confession  of  the  entire  Church,  in  which  this 
doctrine  is  acknowledged ;  and  he  regards  it  as  a  remarkable 
divine  miracle,  that  this  single  article,  of  infant  baptism,  has 
never  been  denied  even  by  heretics.  If  one  should  refuse  to 
acknowledge  that  this  is  a  part  of  the  confession  of  the  true 
Church,  he  must  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  Church  itself ;  for  the 
Church  has  always  confessed  what  she  believed.  He  had  already 
had  occasion  to  meet  the  objection,  that  children  do  not  believe. 
But  how,  had  he  inquired,  is  this  proved?  By  the  fact  that  they 
do  not  yet  show  their  faith?  Neither  could  we,  then,  be  Chris- 
tians when  we  are  asleep  !  Cannot  God  preserve  faith  in  chil- 
dren during  the  whole  period  of  their  infancy  {infaniia)  just  as 
He  preserves  it  in  us  during  protracted  slumber? 

After  again  appealing  to  the  fact,  that  candidates  for  baptism 
are  offered  to  the  Christ  present  at  the  ceremony,  and  that  He 
has,  in  every  recorded  instance,  accepted  that  which  was  thus 
offered,  he  again  asks:  Why  then  should  we  doubt?  We  have 
robbed  the  Heavenly  Prophets,  says  he,  of  their  evidence,  since 
they  have  no  instances  nor  testimonies  to  refer  to,  but  we  have 
both.  If  they  maintain  that,  according  to  Mk.  xvi.  16,  we  must 
first  believe  and  then  be  baptized,  he  demands  that  they  prove 
from  some  other  source  than  this  passage,  which  does  not  imply 
it,  their  supposition  of  the  non-faith  of  children — a  demand  with 
which  they  are  unable  to  comply.  He  adds  :  "  Whatever,  there- 
fore, is  not  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  is  for  the  Scriptures,  and 
the  Scriptures  are  for  it."  This  declaration  must,  of  course,  be 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  context.  It  is  not  an  arbitrary 
opinion,  nor  an  article  of  faith  resting  upon  mere  tradition, 
which  is  thus  proved  to  be  "  not  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,"  but 
a  doctrine  which,  although  not  directly  expressed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, yet  depends  upon  the  promises  of  God  granted  to  faith, 
and  upon  the  examples  recorded.'     He  cites  further,  in  illustra- 

•  This  utterance  of  Luther  is  very  inaccurately  cited  by  Schenkel  in  his 
Wesen  des  Protestantismus,  2d  Ed.,  p.  45  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  47 

tion,  the  Old  Testament  ordinance  of  circumcision,  claiming  that 
the  argimients  of  the  Anabaptists  would  compel  them  to  main- 
tain that  the  children  of  the  Jews  had  not  the  faith  of  Abraham, 
and  could,  therefore,  not  receive  the  sign  of  that  faith. 

He  calls  the  particular  attention  of  Melanchthon  to  the  utter- 
ance of  Paul  concerning  the  sanctity  of  the  children  of  Christian 
paients  (i  Cor.  vii.  14),  and  asks  for  his  opinion  in  regard  to  it. 
He  would  like  to  use  this  passage  to  prove  that,  in  the  practice 
of  the  apostles,  children  were  baptized.^ 

In  writing  to  Spalatin  in  May,  1522,  Luther  gives  briefly  further 
expression  of  his  views.  To  the  question,  whether  children  can 
have  faith  although  not  manifesting  it,  he  replies  as  in  the  letter 
to  Melanchthon.  The  devil,  he  holds,  is  to  be  driven  out  of  the 
children  by  means  of  the  Word  of  God  accompanying  the  prayer 
of  the  Church,  which  Word,  according  to  Isa.  Iv.,  does  not  pro- 
ceed in  vain  from  the  mouth  of  God.  He  finds  no  difference 
between  the  conversion  of  a  child  and  that  of  an  adult  by  the 
Word  of  God,  except  that  in  the  case  of  the  latter — in  his  reason, 
his  own  wisdom,  etc. — there  is  more  rebellion  against  the  saving 
power  of  the  Word.  Thus  he  is  led  again  to  the  thought  expressed 
already  in  his  Commentary  on  Galatians,  i.  e.,  the  greater  sus- 
ceptibility distinguishing  childhood.^  He  then  repeats  his  appeal 
to  the  circumcision  of  children  under  the  old  covenant,  adding 
now,  as  evidence  that  Jewish  infants  were  not  really  without  faith 
and  hence  circumcised  in  vain,  the  assertion  of  Christ  in  Matt, 
xix.,  14  :  "  Theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  observing,  by 
way  of  comment,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  can  belong  only  to 
the  believing.  "  If,  now,"  he  asks,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
became  their  portion  through  circumcision,  why  can  it  not  be 
imparted  also  through  baptism,  especially  since  we  have  here, 
in  addition,  the  sanctification  through  the  Word  and  through 
the  prayer  and  the  faith  of  the  Church,  presenting  the  children 
to  Christ  with  the  petition  that  He  may  lay  His  hands  upon 
them  and  pray  for  them."  It  is  in  this  way  that  Luther  here 
introduces  into  the  discussion  this  scriptural  passage,  which 
henceforth  becomes  a  chief  support  of  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism.' 

But  these  first  rephes,  addressed  to  friends  of  the  Reformer, 

'  Briefe,  ii,  126  sqq.       ^  ^f  supra.  Vol.  I.,  p.  399  sq.        '  Briefe,  ii,  202. 


48  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

afford  us  merely  fragmentary  arguments.  The  fundamental 
principles  underlying  the  doctrine  are,  indeed,  firmly  established 
in  the  mind  of  Luther.  But  upon  some  separate  points,  as  is 
shown  in  his  letter  to  Melanchthon,  he  is  as  yet  himself  endeavor- 
ing to  gain  clearer  convictions.  He  now,  for  the  first  time,  fully 
develops  the  complete  theory  which  harmonizes  and  binds 
together  his  views  upon  the  subject.  This  theory  he  then  pre- 
sents in  his  writings,  especially  in  the  portion  of  the  Ounrh 
Postils  which  he  was  then  engaged  in  preparing,  viz.,  in  the 
Sermon  tipon  the  Third  Sunday  after  Epiphany}  He  himself 
afterwards  refers  to  this  exposition  of  the  subject  in  his  tract 
of  the  year  1528,  entitled:  Von  der  Wiedertaiife,  an  zwei 
Pfarrherrn? 

In  this  Sermon  he,  first  of  all,  expresses  his  purpose  to  "  let 
the  foundation  stand  firm  and  sure,  that  no  one  can  be  saved 
through  the  faith  of  others,  but  through  his  own."  We  must 
suffer  the  whole  world  to  perish  rather  than  surrender  this  prin- 
ciple. With  reference  to  the  sacraments,  he  persists  in  his  oppo- 
sition to  the  lying  doctrine,  that  one  who  receives  the  sacrament 
without  faith  receives  grace  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  He 
repeats  the  Augustinian  maxim  :  "  Not  the  sacrament,  but  the 
faith  of  the  sacrament,  justifies."  He  declares  most  positively  : 
"  Baj)tism  helps  no  one,  and  is  to  be  granted  to  no  one,  unless 
he  believe  for  himself." 

He  accordingly  pronounces  a  mere  "  dream  "  the  traditional 
opinion,  that  children  receive  grace,  without  faith,  merely  through 
the  power  of  baptism.  Even  the  holy  ancient  Fathers  speak 
"  not  clearly  enough  "  for  him,  when  they  affirm  that  young 
children  are  baptized  in  the  faith  of  the  Christian  Church.  They 
do  not  thoroughly  explain  how  this  faith  benefits  the  children — 
whether  they  receive  through  it  a  faith  of  their  own,  or  whether 
(as  the  Sophists  interpret  it)  they  are  baptized,  without  faith  of 
their  own,  upon  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

He  rejects  also,  on  the  other  hand,  the  evasion  of  those  who 
hold  that  children  are  baptized  iipon  the  future  faith  which  they 
will  exercise  when  they  attain  to  years  of  discretion.  This  con- 
ception he  had  met  with  in  the  writings  of  the  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren, and  had  already  antagonized  it  in  his  publication  of  the  year 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  58  sqq.  ^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  255. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  49 

1523,  designed  especially  for  their  instruction,  Vom  Anbeten  des 
Sacraments,  etc'  He  repeats  here  again ;  "  Faith  must  be 
present  before,  or  at  least  in,  baptism ;  otherwise,  the  child  is  not 
released  from  the  devil  and  sin." 

Just  as  little  will  he  allow  the  distinction  between  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  as  the  Christian  Church  and  the  Gospel — and  that  king- 
dom as  eternal  life,  in  accordance  with  which  children  are  sup- 
posed to  be  baptized  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  not  in  the 
latter,  but  merely  in  the  former  sense  of  the  term,  /.  e.,  "  merely 
taken  up  into  Christendom  and  brought  to  the  Gospel.''  These 
notions,  he  declares,  are  all  framed  out  of  man's  own  imagination. 

In  general,  he  is  utterly  unable  to  see  in  a  baptism  which  is 
not  to  effect  and  grant  to  children  the  same  benefits  which  it 
confers  upon  adults  the  same  baptism,  or,  indeed,  any  baptism  at 
all,  but  only  "  a  sport  and  mockery  of  baptism  "  ;  for  there  is  no 
baptism  except  that  which  saves. 

Luther's  own  solution  of  the  problem  is  the  same  as  in  his 
earlier  publications.  He  indicates  its  nature  in  the  above-cited 
comment  upon  the  expressions  of  the  Fathers,  viz.  :  The  question 
is,  hota  the  faith  of  the  Church  benefits  the  children.  His  pro- 
positions are  as  follows  :  Children  in  baptism  have  faith  of  their 
own,  which  God  Himself  efTects  in  them  through  the  petition 
and  presentation  of  the  sponsors  in  the  name  of  the  Christian 
Church.  The  children  are  not  baptized  in  the  faith  of  the 
sponsors,  nor  in  that  of  the  Church,  but  the  faith  of  the  sponsors 
and  of  the  Church  petitions  in  their  behalf  and  secures  for  them 
a  faith  of  their  own,  in  which  they  are  baptized. 

The  ruler  of  Capernaum,  who  by  his  petition  secured  for  his 
servant  the  gift  of  health,  ser^'es  as  an  example  of  the  method 
here  described,  the  narrative  of  this  incident  forming  the  text  of 
the  Sermon  before  us.  Afterwards,  in  the  Sermon  in  the  Church 
Fostils,  delivered  on  the  Nineteenth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  Luther 
makes  use  again  of  the  account  of  the  paralytic  who  was  brought 
by  others,  with  beUeving  entreaty,  to  the  Saviour."^ 

Very  special  emphasis  is  now  laid  upon  the  passages.  Matt.  xix. 

13-15  ;  Mk.  X.  13-16  ;  Luke  xviii.  15,  16.     These  are  for  Luther 

"  strong  and  firm  utterances,"  which  "  no  one  shall  take  from 

us."     He  now  applies  them,  too,  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate 

'^ 

Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  416.  '  Ibid.,  xiv,  171  sq.     Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  400. 

4 


50  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

that  faith  is  bestowed  upon  children  in  the  very  act  of  baptism. 
Christ,  he  afifirms,  is  present  in  baptism  as  truly  as  He  was  then 
present.  According  to  His  word,  "  Suffer  the  children,"  etc.,  it 
must  be  right  and  Christian  to  bring  children  to  Him,  which  can 
be  done  in  no  other  way  than  in  baptism.  It  must  be  certain, 
also,  that  He  blesses  them  and  gives  them  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
which  cannot  be  unless  they  have  personal  faith.  The  piety  and 
faith  of  those  who  bring  them  may,  indeed,  help  them  to  secure 
such  faith,  they  being  presented  by  means  of  the  faith  and  effort 
of  others ;  but  when  they  have  been  brought,  and  the  priest  or 
administrant  deals  with  them  in  Christ's  stead.  He  blesses  them 
and  gives  them  faith  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  for  the  words 
and  acts  of  the  priest  are  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ  Himself. 
From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  awakening  of  faith  in  children 
and  the  bestowal  of  the  salvation,  or  kingdom  of  heaven^  which 
is  dependent  upon  such  awakening  are  in  Luther's  conception 
inseparably  connected. 

In  support  of  the  position,  that  the  apostles  already  baptized 
children  and  regarded  them  as  believers,  he  now  appeals  to  the 
words  of  I  John  ii.  13  :  "I  write  unto  you,  children,"  etc. 
John,  says  he,  there  speaks  of  such  as  art  younger  than  the  youth 
already  mentioned,  /.  c,  of  those  under  fifteen  or  eighteen  years 
of  age,  and  excepts  none  from  that  point  downward  to  the  first 
year  of  life.  The  apostles,  therefore,  held  in  regard  to  such, 
that  "  they  believe  and  know  the  Father,  just  as  though  they  had 
attained  years  of  discretion  and  were  able  to  read." 

The  objection  based  on  the  supposed  incapacity  of  little  chil- 
dren for  the  exercise  of  faith  is  now  more  definitely  stated,  as 
follows:  Faith,  according  to  Rom  x.  17,  cometh  by  hearing; 
but  children,  not  having  arrived  at  the  years  of  discretion,  cannot 
hear  the  Word  of  God.  In  meeting  this,  Luther  avails  himself  of 
his  closer  definition  of  reason,  as  the  substance  (content)  of  the 
thinking,  planning  and  striving  in  the  natural  man,  in  order  to  turn 
the  immaturity  of  this  endowment  into  an  argument  in  behalf  of 
infant  baptism.  He  locates  the  "  rebellion  "  {yid.,  p.  47)  of  the 
depraved  nature  in  the  reason.  This  is  just  the  power  that  most 
stoutly  resists  the  Word  of  God,  so  that  no  one  can  come  to  God 
without  first  dying  to  reason,  becoming  even  "  as  unreasonable 
and  unintelligent  as  any  young  child."  He  then  argues  directly  : 
"  Just  because  they  are  without  reason,  they  are  better  adapted 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT    THE    WARTBURG.  5 1 

for  faith  than  old  and  rational  persons,  with  whom  reason  is 
always  standing  in  the  way  and  will  not  stoop  to  pass  her  lofty 
head  through  the  strait  gate."  Just  at  this  point  he  claims  the 
fullest  recognition  for  his  fundamental  principle,  that,  at  all  events, 
God  alone  works  our  salvation  :  "  Here  God  alone  works,  and 
reason  is  dead,  blind  and  opposed  to  this  work,  like  an  irrational 
block.  *  *  *  Faith  in  God's  Word  is  the  work  of  God  alone 
and  beyond  all  the  power  of  reason,  and  to  Him  the  child  is  just 
as  near  as  the  adult — yea,  much  nearer."  It  "strikes"  him, 
therefore,  "  that  if  any  baptism  can  be  certain,  that  of  children 
must  be  the  most  certain  of  all,  in  view  of  the  Word  of  Christ  in 
which  He  bids  them  to  be  brought  to  Him.  The  old  come  of 
themselves,  and  in  them  there  may  be  deceit  in  consequence  of 
their  mature  reason,  whereas  in  children,  on  account  of  their  yet 
undeveloped  (hidden)  reason,  there  can  be  no  deception,  and 
in  them  Christ  makes  effectual  {wirkct)  His  blessing,  as  He  has 
bidden  them  to  be  brought  to  Him."  He  again  directs  attention 
to  the  condition  of  the  behever  in  sleep,  in  which  the  latter  is 
never  left  without  faith  and  the  grace  of  God — and,  still  further, 
to  other  conditions,  as  in  the  midst  of  labors  and  worldly  business, 
when  the  believer  is  not  constantly  thinking  of  faith  or  of  reason, 
while  yet  his  faith  has  not  ceased  to  exist.  He  meets  the  objec- 
tion based  upon  the  necessity  for  a  hearing  of  the  Word  (Rom. 
X.)  by  maintaining  that  it  is  only  the  intelligent  hearing  which  is 
'lacking  in  the  case  of  children,  whereas  they  have  the  spiritual 
hearing :  in  baptism  they  hear  the  Gospel — hear  it,  indeed,  only 
once,  but  so  much  the  more  impressively  because  Christ,  who 
commanded  them  to  be  brought  to  Him,  now  receives  them. 
Luther  does  not,  as  we  observe,  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the 
question,  what  is  really  the  psychological  nature  of  faith  and  of  a 
spiritual  hearing  of  the  Word,  or,  indeed,  of  any  mental  and 
religious  exercise.  We  should  be  satisfied,  he  insists,  with  the 
invitation  and  assurance  of  the  Lord,  /.  e.,  that  we  should  suffer 
the  children  to  come,  etc., — and  to  this  he  constantly  returns. 
"  Leave  (the  question  of)  their  faith  to  Him  who  bids  you  bring 
them  to  Him,  and  say :  Upon  this  I  depend."  "  Isaiah  Iv.  9 
says  :  My  ways  are  higher  than  your  ways  and  my  thoughts  than 
your  thoughts."  "  The  works  of  God  are  secret,  where  and  when 
He  will." 

Luther,  as  already  observed,  in  his  tract,  Von  der  Wiedertaufe, 


52  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

addressed  to  two  pastors  in  the  year  1528,'  refers  the  reader  to 
hisC/mrc/i  Postils,  from  which  we  have  gleaned  the  above  extracts. 

In  the  former  publication,  he  has  gathered,  together  with  the 
passage  in  Matt.  xix.  14,  a  number  of  further  scriptural  testi- 
monies in  support  of  the  proposition,  that  children  may  believe, 
even  though  they  have  as  yet  no  reasoning  power.  Thus,  the 
blood  of  the  children,  in  Ps.  cvi.  -^Z,  is  called  "  innocent," 
although  they  certainly  could  not  be  pure  without  the  Spirit  and 
faith.  He  now  lays  especial  emphasis  upon  the  testimony  con- 
cerning John  the  Baptist,  while  he  was  yet  in  his  mother's  womb. 
In  this  child,  he  argues,  faith  must  surely  have  been  already  pres- 
ent (when  he  leaped  at  the  coming  of  Mary)  :  hence  it  follows, 
that  there  may  be  faith  even  in  little  children.  And  it  cannot 
now  be  denied  that  the  very  same  Christ  who  there,  while  yet  in 
the  womb  of  Mary,  came  to  John  is  present  at  baptism  and  in 
baptism.  He  speaks  here  through  the  mouth  of  the  priest,  as 
there  through  the  mouth  of  His  mother.  Why  should  not,  there- 
fore, through  His  speaking  and  His  baptism,  the  Spirit  and  faith 
here  enter  into  children  as  there  into  John?  Luther  still  firmly 
maintains  that  the  baptism  of  children  is  the  most  secure  of  all, 
because  a  child  cannot  deceive,  and  because  it  comes  to  Christ 
as  did  John  and  as  did  the  children  who  were  brought  to  Him 
as  recorded  in  Matt.  xix. 

He  now  discusses  more  distinctly  than  in  the  passages  hitherto, 
cited  the  question,  whether  Christ  has  actually  commanded  the 
baptism  of  children.  To  those  who  profess  themselves  unable 
to  find  any  utterances  or  examples  in  its  favor  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, he  replies,  that  Christ  has  not  given  command  to  baptize 
adult  persons,  or  men  or  women  as  such,  but  only,  in  general 
terms,  all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii.  19)  :  but  children  form  a  large 
portion  of  the  nations.  He  cites,  further,  examples  from  the 
Acts  and  the  writings  of  Paul  (i  Cor.  i.  16),  in  which  the  bap- 
tism of  entire  households  is  spoken  of.  He  also  draws  an  argu- 
ment again  from  i  John  ii.  13. 

The  sign  of  the  ancient  covenant,  circumcision,  is  then  also 
adduced.  He  assumes  that  God  has  now  made  His  covenant 
with  all  nations  through  the  Gospel,  and  has  appointed  baptism 
as  its  sign.     Who,  he  asks,  can  then  exclude  the  children?     If 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  254-294. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  53 

the  old  covenant  and  its  sign,  circumcision,  made  the  children 
of  Abraham  believing  and  people  of  God,  much  more  must  the 
new  covenant  and  its  sign  have  such  power,  and  make  those  who 
accept  it  the  people  of  God ;  and  it  is  to  be  accepted,  according 
to  the  commandment  of  God,  by  the  whole  world. 

We  must  note,  also,  with  special  care  the  argument  of  Luther 
based  upon  the  fact  that  God  had,  as  a  matter  of  histor}^  allowed 
infant  baptism  to  stand  up  to  that  time  unchallenged  in  the 
Church,  and  had  thus  granted  it  gracious  recognition  (cf.  supra, 
in  the  letter  to  Melanchthon) .  He  here  emphasizes  three  points. 
First :  No  heresy  has  ever  maintained  its  place  perpetually,  but 
only  for  a  little  while  at  most.  Thus,  also,  if  infant  baptism  had 
been  wrong,  God  would  not  have  upheld  it  so  long,  even  as  He 
has  kept  the  Bible,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Children's  Creed 
(/.  e.,  the  Apostles').  This  divine  miracle  indicates,  therefore, 
that  infant  baptism  must  be  right.  Where  we  see  a  work  of  God 
we  must  believe,  just  as  well  as  when  we  hear  His  Word,  unless, 
indeed,  the  Scriptures  designate  such  work  as  one  which  we  are 
to  avoid.  An  example  of  the  latter  kind  is  seen  in  the  Papacy, 
which,  since  the  Scriptures  are  arrayed  against  it,  is  to  be  regarded 
as  a  work  of  God  indeed,  but  not  as  a  work  of  grace,  but  a  work 
of  wrath,  which  is  to  be  avoided.  Neither  has  the  Papacy  ever 
been,  like  the  Bible  and  infant  baptism,  accepted  by  all  Chris- 
tians in  the  whole  ivorld.  Secondly  :  God  bears  testimony  in 
behalf  of  infant  baptism  through  the  great  and  sacred  gifts  with 
which  He  has  endowed,  and  still  endows,  many  Christians  bap- 
tized in  infancy,  without  requiring  a  repetition  of  their  baptism. 
But  God  never  by  His  acts  opposes  Himself.  He  will  not,  by  the 
bestowal  of  His  gifts,  sanction  disobedience  to  His  command. 
The  argument  here  is  similar  to  that  in  which  the  apostle,  in 
Acts  XV.  8,  9,  from  the  fact  that  God  granted  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
the  Gentiles  (without  an  acceptance  of  the  Law  upon  their  part), 
inferred  that  the  Gentiles  are  not  bound  to  the  Law  of  Moses. 
Thirdly  :  If  infant  baptism  were  not  right,  it  would  follow  that  in 
all  this  time  there  has  been  no  baptism,  and  hence  also  no 
Christendom ;  for  Christendom  must,  in  order  to  exist  at  all,  be 
subject  to  Christ  and  have  His  Word,  His  baptism,  His  sacrament. 

In  the  course  of  the  above  argument,  we  are  struck  with  the 
fact  that  the  same  Luther  who  so  boldly  entered  the  conflict  with 
ancient  traditions  in  the  interest  of  evangelical  truth  now  himself,- 


54  THE    'IHEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

in  resisting  a  professedly  reformatory  and  evangelical  tendency, 
appeals  for  support  to  the  antiquity  of  a  tradition}  He  now, 
however,  grants  the  validity  of  such  a  tradition,  not  merely 
because  it  has  been  preserved  by  human  hierarchical  agencies 
appointed  by  God,  nor  because  it  is  accepted  by  the  great  mass 
of  believers  in  Christendom ;  but  upon  the  ground  that,  among 
all  Christians,  and  therefore  among  those  in  whom  the  Spirit  of 
God  really  dwelt,  no  opposition  to  it  had  ever  arisen,  and  because, 
therefore,  if  it  were  really  against  the  mind  of  Christ,  the  very 
existence  of  such  a  congregation  of  believers  in  Christ  would  be 
assailed.  That  a  Church  of  Christ  does  really  exist,  and  has 
always  existed,  is,  at  all  events,  for  him  a  fundamental  article  of 
faith,  resting  upon  the  promise  of  Christ.  The  only  possible 
question  for  him  in  this  instance  would  have  been,  whether  an 
error  in  regard  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  would  have  been 
really  irreconcilable  with  the  continued  existence  of  an  otherwise 
Christian  spirit,  faith  and  life. 

But  the  chief  stress  was  laid  by  Luther  upon  the  second  of  the 
arguments  quoted,  in  connection  with  the  third — as  is  manifest 
especially  from  an  examination  of  his  Larger  Catechism?  He 
here  again  explains  :  That  infant  baptism  is  pleasing  to  God  is 
sufficiently  proved  by  His  own  work,  /.  e.,  by  His  making  so  many 
of  the  baptized  holy,  giving  them  His  Spirit,  etc.  This  God 
would  not  do,  if  He  did  not  accept  the  baptism  of  children. 
Yea,  otherwise  there  would  now  for  a  long  time  have  been  no 
Christian  at  all  on  earth.  "  This,"  says  the  Catechism,  "  is 
almost  the  best  and  strongest  method  of  proof  for  the  simple  and 
unlearned ;  for  no  one  shall  ever  take  from  us,  nor  overthrow, 
this  article  of  our  Creed  :  I  believe  in  a  holy  Christian  Church, 
the  communion  of  saints,"  etc. 

In  this  document,  Luther  insists  with  peculiar  emphasis  upon 
the  objective  validity  which  attaches  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism 
in  and  of  itself,  even  apart  from  the  faith  of  the  recipient.  This 
brings  into  view  for  the  first  time  the  full  significance  of  the 
sacrament  and  means  of  grace  as  such.  Here,  again,  we  must 
recall  attention  to  his  earlier  and  distinctly  expressed  theory.  He 
now  discriminates  yet  more  definitely  between  the  significance 
which  attaches  to  baptism  in  itself,  by  virtue  of  the  Word  of  Christ, 

1  Cf.  Vol.  T.,  p.  506.  2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  136. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  55 

and  that  which  attaches  to  the  faith  of  the  recipient,  although 
we  have  learned  from  previous  representations  how  necessary  is 
this  very  faith  to  a  true  and  fruitful  appropriation  of  that  which 
baptism  in  itself  includes  and  brings  with  it. 

Luther  guards  carefully  against  the  error  of  making  the  believer's 
own  faith  the  real  ground  of  his  hope  of  salvation.  Faith  must, 
it  is  true,  be  exercised  in  baptism,  but  no  one  is  to  be  baptized 
on  (the  ground  of)  his  faith.  It  is  one  thing  to  have  faith,  and 
quite  another  thing  to  depend  upon  one's  faith,  and  thus  be  bap- 
tized upon  it.  It  is,  much  rather,  the  firm  ground  of  our  baptism, 
that  God  has  made  a  covenant  and  instituted  baptism  as  its  sign. 
We  receive  baptism,  therefore,  not  because  we  are  sure  that  we 
possess  faith,  but  because  He  desires  us  to  receive  it.  He  who 
is  baptized  upon  (the  ground  of)  his  faith,  builds  upon  something 
which  is  his  own,  and  not  upon  God's  Word  alone.  Man's  faith, 
moreover,  is  variable ;  there  is  ever  something  lacking  in  it, 
something  yet  to  be  learned  :  the  commandment  of  God,  on  the 
contrary,  cannot  deceive ;  His  Word  stands  sure  forever.  Yea, 
says  Luther,  when  one  is  baptized  upon  the  w^ord  and  command- 
ment of  God,  even  though  he  had  no  faith  and  his  baptism  could 
hence  be  of  no  benefit  to  him,  yet  would  the  baptism  itself  be 
"right  and  sure" — just  as  the  Gospel  remains  a  right  Gospel, 
even  though  it  does  not  benefit  the  unbelieving  hearer. 

The  Anabaptists,  he  maintains,  dare  not,  according  to  their 
own  principles,  baptize,  until  they  know  assuredly  that  the  candi- 
date has  faith.  But  how  shall  they  know  this  ?  Even  the  candi- 
date himself  is  not  so  certain  of  his  faith.  Should  one  who  has 
been  re-baptized  be  assailed  by  temptations  to  doubt,  and  be 
convinced  that,  although  he  did  not  rightly  believe  yesterday, 
he  to-day  possesses  true  faith,  he  would  always  in  such  case  have 
to  repeat  his  baptism. 

Even  though  it  be  granted  that  children  are  without  faith, 
Luther  argues  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  repeat  baptism. 
It  would  then  be  in  itself  a  proper  baptism,  but  merely  improperly 
received.  There  would  be  no  occasion,  in  that  case,  to  renew 
the  baptism,  but  only  to  remedy  that  which  had  been  wrong  in 
it.  We  might  apply  in  such  an  instance  the  maxim  :  The  abuse 
of  a  thing  does  not  destroy,  but  confirms,  its  proper  character 
(substantiani).  Should  faith  come  years  after  the  baptism,  bap- 
tism would  then  have  what  properly  belongs  to  it.     The  Larger 


56  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Catechism  expresses  the  same  idea  :  Gold,  it  declares,  does  not 
the  less  remain  gold,  though  it  be  worn  by  a  harlot  in  her  sin 
and  shame. 

Luther  had  also  to  combat  the  idea  of  the  Anabaptists,  that 
the  faith  of  the  administrant  has  something  to  do  with  the 
efficacy  or  validity  of  baptism.  He  here  goes  so  far  as  to  declare  : 
*'  It  is  in  some  measure  fraught  with  greater  danger  when  God 
gives  His  Word  through  holy  persons  than  when  He  gives  it 
through  those  who  are  unholy,  since  unreasoning  people  are  mis- 
led by  this,  and  cling  more  to  the  holiness  of  men  than  to  the 
Word  of  God." 

As  the  underlying  impelling  power  of  the  entire  Anabaptist 
movement,  however,  he  recognized  again  the  "  work-devil," 
against  which  he  had  so  long  been  contending.  The  latter  pro- 
fesses to  exalt  faith,  but  he  means  thereby  works,  and  leads  the 
poor  people  to  place  their  confidence  in  works.  They  are  taught, 
by  the  theory  of  these  deceivers,  to  place  their  contidence  in  the 
supposed  fact,  that,  if  they  have  been  baptized  as  is  now  required 
by  the  latter,  they  have  done  something  right  and  good.  They, 
in  truth,  make  no  account  at  all  of  faith,  but  boast  of  it  only  for 
the  sake  of  appearance.  This  is  really,  therefore,  a  genuine 
master-piece  of  the  devil's  cunning,  to  drive  Christian  people 
from  the  righteoustiess  of  faith  back  upon  the  7-ighteoiisncss  of 
works. 

Thus  we  see  the  doctrine  of  Luther  upon  infant  baptism,  and 
upon  the  objective  character  of  baptism  in  general,  brought  to  its 
full  and  definite  development  under  the  historical  influences 
whose  character  has  been  briefly  indicated. 

Even  Zwingli's  doctrine  appeared  to  him  to  seriously  imperil 
the  proper  recognition  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  Indeed,  in 
the  tract  upon  Anabaptism,  after  all  that  he  has  said  concerning 
the  emptiness  of  the  theory,  he  finally  adds,  that  the  error  of  the 
Anabaptists  is,  in  this  particular,  more  endurable  than  that  of  the 
"  Sacramentarians,"  since  the  latter  reduce  baptism  to  nothing  at 
all,  whereas  the  former  fashion  it  into  a  new  form.  There  was, 
however,  no  thorough-going  discussion  of  the  subject  with  Zwingli. 
Luther  charged  him  with  holding  the  view,  that  baptism  is  merely 
a  sign  of  the  confession  of  faith  upon  the  part  of  the  recipient, 
whereas  the  Anabaptists  spoke,  at  least,  of  a  divine  impartation 
communicated  through  baptism  and  presupposing  the  existence 


AFrER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  57 

of  faith.  But  at  Marburg,  in  1529,  Zwingli  and  his  associates 
joined  with  Luther  in  the  acceptance  of  the  proposition,  that 
baptism,  resting  upon  the  command  and  promise  of  God,  "  is 
not  merely  an  empty  sign  and  watchword  among  Christians,  but 
a  sign  and  work  of  God,  in  which  our  faith  is  promoted,  and 
through  which  we  are  born  again."  In  the  fact  that  faith,  with- 
out which,  indeed,  for  Luther  as  well  as  for  Zwingli,  regeneration 
is  impossible  and  baptism  fruitless,  is  here  so  impressively  empha- 
sized and  described  directly  as  that  through  which  men  are 
regenerated,  we  trace,  upon  Luther's  side,  a  result  of  his  effort  to 
harmonize  as  far  as  possible  with  the  Swiss  theologians,  without 
discovering  any  indication  of  wavering  in  the  maintenance  of  his 
own  view  as  to  the  objectivity  of  the  sacrament;  In  his  own 
presentation  of  the  doctrine,  /.  <?.,  in  the  Schwabach  Articles 
drawn  up  immediately  afterward,  the  emphasis  was  laid  but  the 
more  strongly  by  Luther  and  his  fellow-laborers  upon  the  sacra- 
ment as  such,  as  consisting  in  the  water  and  the  Word  of  God ; 
it  was  declared  to  be,  by  virtue  of  such  Word^  a  living  and  pow- 
erful thing;  and  only  in  the  Conclusion,  after  the  citation  of 
Matt,  xxviii.  19  and  Mk.  xvi.  16,  are  added  the  words:  "here 
one  must  believe."  ' 

In  the  dialogue  at  Wittenberg,  in  1536,  the  question  of  the 
faith  of  children  at  baptism,  in  regard  to  which  the  Marburg 
Articles  had  given  no  deliverance,  was  discussed  by  Luther  and 
Bucer.  The  latter  acknowledged  freely  that  regeneration  and 
sonship  are  granted  to  children,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  works 
in  them,  just  as  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist  while  yet  in  bis 
mother's  womb.  But  he  was  not  able  to  agree  with  Luther,  that 
the  recipients  of  baptism  already  apprehend  the  words  of  the 
Gospel,  believe  in  the  act  of  baptism,  and  thereby  are  saved. 
He  was  willing  to  grant  faith  in  children  only  if  faith  be  under- 
stood, in  a  wider  sense,  of  every  divine,  inbreathing.  Luther,  on 
the  other  hand,  maintained  that  there  is  really  already  a  begin- 
ning of  faith  in  children,  even  though  it  be  in  a  peculiar  way, 
unknown  to  us.  He  pointed  again  to  the  existence  of  faith  in 
believers  during  sleep.  He  was  here  again  influenced,  as  Secken- 
dorf  in  his  report  of  the  proceedings  not  incorrectly  remarks, 
directly  by  his  anxiety  that  salvation  should  not  appear  to  be 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  90;  xxiv,  326. 


58  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

imparted,  without  the  necessary  subjective  means  of  appropria- 
tion, through  the  mere  work  and  office  of  the  Church,  of  which 
Bucer  spoke.  As  to  the  way  in  which  this  means  of  appropria- 
tion is  itself  implanted  in  the  recipient  of  baptism,  he  adheres 
to  the  statements  previously  elaborated.' 


c.   The  Lord's  Supper. 

aa.    Opposition  to  the  Denial  of  the  Bodily  Presence  before  the 
Announcement  of  Carlstadf  s  Theory. 

VIEWS  OF  BOHEMIAN  BRETHREN ZWINGLI    FOLLOWING    HONIUS POSI- 
TIVE ATTITUDE  OF  LUTHER NATURAL    SENSE  OF  WORDS NATURAL 

BODY    VS.  SIGN    OF    SPIRITUAL    BODY BODY    AMD    BREAD PRIMARY 

IMPORTANCE    OF    WORD. 

It  was  only  at  the  close  of  the  year  1523,  and  during  the  year 
1524,  that  Carlstadt  publicly  advocated  his  theory  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  condemned  the  Lutheran  view,  no  less  than  that 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  unevangelical  and  unspirituaL 
The  resistance  of  this  assault  marks  the  beginning  of  that  great 
series  of  doctrinal  writings  in  which  Luther  connectedly  and  fully 
explained  and  fortified  his  view  in  opposition  to  tendencies  which, 
though  born  of  the  Reformation  itself,  now  broke  away  from  the 
original  path. 

He  had,  however,  even  before  this  time,  had  occasion  to  justify, 
as  against  opponents  of  the  Romish  Church,  the  view  of  the 
presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  which  he  had  already  presented 
in  his  treatise  upon  the  Babylonian  Captivity.  He  had  to  deal, 
in  this  instance,  with  opponents  of  the  Papacy  and  tradition 
Mhose  spirit  was  by  no  means  so  repulsive  to  him  as  was  that  of 
Carlstadt  and  his  followers — with  whom,  on  the  contrary,  he  de- 
sired to  stand  in  relations  of  sincere  love  and  doctrinal  unity. 
We  refer  to  the  Bohemian  brethren,  commonly  called  by  Luther 
Waldenses,  or  Picards.  We  must  now  recur  to  his  deliverances 
in  opposition  to  their  views. 

Paul  Speratus,  who  had  been  called  as  an  evangelical  preacher 
to  Iglau,  in  Moravia,  had  sent  to  Luther  reports  concerning  the 

'  Walch,  xvii,  2557-59.     Seckendorf,  Hist.  Lutheran.,  Vo\  III.,  p.  131. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  59 

Brethren,  and  a  request  for  his  opinion  in  regard  to  some  of  their 
teachings.  Luther's  first  reply  to  him  is  dated  May  i6,  1522. 
The  immediate  question  discussed  was,  whether  the  sacrament 
of  the  altar  is  to  be  worshiped,  a  custom  which  gave  olTence  to 
the  Brethren.  But  Speratus  further  reported,  that  he  found 
among  them  also,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  the  opinion  that  the 
bread  and  wine  are  a  "  bare  representation  "  {/j/osse  Bedeutung) 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Luther  now  sought  to  gain 
further  information  from  certain  delegates  who  had  been  sent  to 
him  by  the  Brethren.  He  also  received  two  doctrinal  treatises 
from  their  Senior,  Lucas.  He  thus  reached  the  conclusion : 
They  believe  that  the  bread  is  truly  and  really  the  body  of  Christ, 
although  His  body  and  blood  are  here  present  not  in  the  same 
form  as  in  heaven  (nor  in  the  same  way  as  Christ  in  the  spirits  of 
men).  In  a  later  letter  (July  4),  he  writes  that  he  sees  nothing 
false  in  their  teaching  concerning  the  Eucharist,  provided  they 
are  not  juggling  with  their  words.  They  commonly  employ,  says 
he,  obscure  and  barbarous  expressions  instead  of  the  language  of 
Scripture.  Later  still,  in  1523,  he  reports,  as  the  theory  which 
he  finds  prevalent  among  them  :  They  think  that  Christ  is  under 
the  bread  {sub pane^,no\.  corporeally  (as  some  say  that  they  have 
seen  there  the  blood  and  the  diminutive  form  of  Christ,  etc.), 
but  spiritually  and  sacramen tally — that  is,  he  who  receives  the 
bread  visibly  truly  receives  naturally,  but  invisibly,  the  blood  of 
Him  who  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  Hence,  also,  they 
oppose  the  adoration  of  the  host,  teaching  that  what  is  there  pre- 
sent, not  visibly,  but  invisibly,  is  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.' 
We  are  here  not  especially  concerned  to  discover  what  was  the 
real  and  original  opinion  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren.  It  is 
enough  for  us  to  know  what  were  the  views  which  Luther  attrib- 
uted to  them,  and  in  refutation  of  which  he  felt  himself  called 
upon  to  develop  and  fortify  his  own  theory.  It  cannot  surprise 
us,  that  he  found  their  language  obscure.  This  was  but  a  natural 
result  of  their  attempt,  despite  all  the  divergences  of  their  theory 
(which  was  very  strongly  influenced  by  that  of  Wickliffe)^  from 

'Briefe,  vi,  33;  ii,  217,  430.  Cf.  also,  for  relations  of  Luther  to  the  Breth- 
ren, the  article:  "Bohmen  und  Mahren,"  by  Gindely,  in  Zeitaher  der  Refor- 
mation, 1S57,  Vol.  I.,  p.  188  sqq. 

'Cf.  Bohringer,  Die  Kirche  Christi,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  340-377:  Die  Vorreforma- 
toren — Johann  von  Wyklifie. 


6o  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

that  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  still  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible, 
laying  themselves  open  to  the  charge  of  denying  the  presence  of 
the  body  altogether.  Of  this  peculiarity  we  have  abundant 
evidence  in  the  numerous  confessions  and  defences  which  they 
published,  even  before  they  had  felt  the  influence  of  the  German 
Reformation.  A  number  of  further  points  also,  which  are 
touched  upon  in  Luther's  Fom  Anbeten  dcs  Sacraments,  are 
here  brought  into  view.  Whilst  rejecting  the  scholastic  doctrine 
of  a  transformation  of  the  substance,  they  declare  that,  with  the 
words  of  consecration,  there  is  immediately  present  the  body  of 
Christ,  given  for  us,  and  His  blood,  and  even  that  the  bread  is 
the  true  [veruiii)  natural  body  of  Christ,  taken  (^sunitinn)  from 
the  most  pure  virgin,  etc.  ;  and  that  Christ  is  thus  present  sacra- 
mentally.  But  with  this  statement  they  immediately  combine 
the  further  specification,  that  He  is  here  spiritually,  adding  also, 
by  way  of  caution,  that  He  is  here  in  another  mode  of  existence 
{^per  aliam  existentiain^  than  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  He  is 
not  here  personally,  with  the  natural  substance  {substantia)  of 
His  body.  In  this  sense.  He  will  not  be  present  upon  earth  until 
the  Day  of  Judgment.  With  this  actual  substance  of  His  body 
He  has  but  one  place,  namely,  that  to  which  He  ascended  before 
the  eyes  of  His  disciples.  Christ,  with  His  natural  body,  is  not 
here  "  abiding  actually  and  corporeally  "  {niansione  existentcr  et 
corporalitei-).  Evidently,  the  meaning  of  these  writers  is  only 
that  the  body  is  present  on  earth  in  a  spiritual  {s^eistiger)  energy, 
which  emanates  from  Christ,  and  which  the  believer  enjoys  in  a 
peculiar  way  in  the  sacrament.  The  stress  is  laid  upon  the  idea, 
that  Christ  is  present  "  spiritually,  efificaciousl)',  potently,  in 
energy"  {spiritualiter,  efficaciter,  patenter,  in  virtute).  Yet,  upon 
the  other  hand,  they  always  expressly  disavowed  fellowship  with 
those  who  regarded  the  Supper  as  a  bare  memorial  feast,  or  the 
bread  as  merely  "  figuratively  "  the  body  of  Christ  dwelling  in 
heaven.  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  they  also  declare  that 
"  the  bread  is  at  the  same  time  spiritual  flesh  and  the  wine  spiritual 
blood,  namely,  the  unity  of  the  Church  "  {quod  est  unitas 
ecclesiae),  with  appeal  to  i  Cor.  x.  i6.  Adoration  is  denied  to 
the  sacrament,  because  it  belongs  only  to  Christ  as  He  is  seated 
at  the  right  hand  of  God.  They  demand  of  their  opponents, 
why  they  do  not  worship  Christ  in  the  person  of  believers  just 
as  well,  at  least,  as  in  the  sacrament,  since    He  dwells  within 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  6 1 

them  constantly,  whereas  He  is  present  in  the  sacrament  only 
occasionally.' 

lAither,  at  all  events,  gave  their  utterances  as  kind  a  reception 
and  as  favorable  an  interpretation  as  was,  from  his  point  of  view, 
possible  :  and  he  did  so  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he,  at  the 
same  time,  not  only  most  strenuously  combated,  from  the  very 
outset,  the  general  attitude  toward  the  means  of  grace  assumed 
by  the  New  Prophets,  but  was  compelled  to  witness  alto  the 
ominous  appearance  of  an  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institu- 
tion which  he  found  it  necessary  to  antagonize  especially  in  the 
utterances  of  Zwingli.  The  fundamental  difference,  however, 
which  is  to  be  observed  between  the  doctrine  of  the  Brethren 
and  the  views  of  Carlstadt  and  Zwingli,  and  which  undoubtedly 
furnishes  the  chief  explanation  of  the  different  attitude  of  Luther 
toward  the  two,  lies  in  the  fact,  that  among  the  former  the  chief 
thing  in  the  sacrament  was  held  to  be  the  reception  of  an  object- 
ive, divine  gift,  whereas  among  the  followers  of  the  latter  the 
sacrament  was  viewed  as  essentially  a  religious  transaction  on  the 
part  of  man.  This  makes  it  but  so  much  the  more  significant  for 
us  that  the  Brethren  should  nevertheless  have  appeared  to  him  to 

1  Cf.  in  Balth.  Lydius,  Waldensia,  Roterod.,  1616,  Sect.  II.;  Confessio  fidei 
fratrum,  A.  D.  1504;  Oratorio  Excusatoria,  etc.,  1507  ;  further,  especially  the 
Excusatio  — contra  literas  D.  Augustini,  and  extract  from  a  letter  of  the  Breth- 
ren, of  early  date,  addressed  to  the  Archbishop  of  Prague,  Rockyczana,  in  the 
Apologia  of  A.  D.  1538.  John  Lasicius,  De  origine  et  rebus  adversis  fratrum 
Bohemorum  (according  to  a  MS.  preserved  at  Herrnhut)  reports  in  his  Bk.  III., 
Sect.  69:  When  sending  their  defensive  writings  to  the  King  of  Hungary, 
they,  at  the  same  time,  declared  also  in  a  synod  that  the  bread  is  the  body  of 
Christ  "sacranientaliter,  spiritualiter,  potenter  et  vere."  At  a  synod  in  1 5 18, 
they  again  scrutinized  these  propositions,  and  then  sent  them  also  to  Luther. 
In  his  further  record  of  the  declarations  of  the  Brethren,  Lasicius  appears  to 
be  not  entirely  trustworthy,  since  he  accepted  modifications  made  by  the 
Moravian  bishop,  Turnowsky,  not  in  the  interest  of  historical  accuracy,  but  for 
apologetic  purposes.  We  call  attention,  further,  to  the  fact  that,  although  the 
Brethren  had  after  1524  for  a  considerable  time  abandoned  their  correspond- 
ence with  Luther,  they  yet  solemnly  rejected  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  which  Johann  Cizek,  a  former  Breslau  monk  who  appeared 
among  them  in  1525,  sought  to  disseminate,  and  finally  drove  Cizek  himself 
from  their  midst,  besides  publishing  a  number  of  controversial  writings  against 
the  Zwinglians  (Gindely,  p.  191  sqq).  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  easily 
understood,  from  an  examination  of  their  thesis  above  quoted  touching  the 
Lord's  Supper,  why  they  afterwards  placed  themselves  in  closer  relations  with 
Calvinism. 


62  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

be  SO  sorely  in  need  of  instruction  as  is  indicated  by  the  contents 
of  his  treatise,  Vom  Anbcte7i  des  Sacraments. 

Moreover,  as  already  stated,  the  view  which  Zwingli  afterward 
accepted  had  at  that  time  already  been  advocated  upon  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Reformation  and  brought  to  the  notice  of  Luther. 
Already  in  1522  (in  the  summer  of  that  year,  at  the  latest;  prob- 
ably not  as  early  as  152 1),'  the  letter  of  the  Hollander,  Hoen,  or 
Honius,  had  been  received,  in  which  the  latter,  with  Luther, 
acknowledged  the  sacrament  as  a  promise  and  pledge  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  compared  it  to  the  ring  presented  by  a  bride- 
groom to  his  bride,  and  demanded  from  the  recipient  the  faith 
that  Christ,  the  Bridegroom,  belongs  to  us — yet,  with  all,  denied 
the  bodily  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper.  He  quoted,  as 
against  the  belief  in  such  a  presence,  the  prohibition  of  Matt, 
xxiv.  23  against  crying :  "  Here  is  Christ,  there  is  Christ."  He 
acknowledged  in  the  reception  of  the  Supper  only  a  spiritual 
relation  to  Christ.  He  even  declared  the  est  of  the  words  of 
institution  to  be  equivalent  to  sigtiijicaf,  the  expression  being 
similar  to  that  in  which  Christ  is,  in  Matt.  xvi.  18  and  i  Cor.  x. 
4,  called  the  Rock.  Although  he  is  thus,  in  his  exegesis,  a  fore- 
runner of  Zwingli,  in  other  respects  the  bestowal  of  a  gift  upon 
the  part  of  Christ  still  appears  for  him  the  central  point  of  the 
sacrament.^ 

Thus  Luther  was  now  compelled,  for  the  first  time,  and  that, 
too,  in  opposition  to  tendencies  which  challenged  his  sympathy, 
not  only  on  account  of  their  opposition  to  Rome,  but  on  account 
also  of  the  positive  evangelical  interest  which  they  displayed,  to 
mark  out  a  clear  line  of  discrimination  between  his  teaching  and 
a  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  rejected  not  only  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  which  he  had  himself  opposed,  but  also  the 
entire  doctrine  of  a  bodily  presence,  which  he  had  up  to  this 
time  continued  to  maintain. 

But  here,  as  in  earlier  emergencies,  he  assumed  at  once  a  most 
positive  attitude. 

Afterwards,  in  1524,  he  confessed  to  the  adherents  of  his  cause 
in  Strassburg,'^  that  "  if  Dr.  Carlstadt  or  any  one  else  could  have 
assured  me  five  years  ago  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  sacrament 

1  Cf.  Dieckhoff,  1.  c,  p.  77  sqq. 

2  Briefe,  ii,  577. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  63 

but  bread  and  wine,  he  would  have  done  me  a  great  service.  I 
had  at  that  time  to  withstand  such  sore  temptations,  restraining 
and  conquering  myself,  that  I  would  gladly  have  escaped,  since  I 
saw  very  well  that  I  with  such  an  argument  could  have  given  the 
Papacy  a  tremendous  thump ;  and  I  had  two  friends,  also,  who 
wrote  to  me  about  it  more  skilfully  than  Dr.'Carlstadt."  But^ 
even  in  those  earlier  years,  there  was  never  a  trace  in  his  writings 
of  any  inward  leaning  towards  that  side  of  the  controversy.  We 
have  seen  how,  with  all  his  insistence  upon  faith  and,  in  general, 
upon  a  proper  spiritual  attitude  in  the  reception  of  the  divine 
sacramental  gift,  he  yet  attached  himself,  at  first,  to  the  tradi- 
tional doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  then,  proceeding  imme- 
diately from  this  position,  advanced  to  his  own  theory  of  the 
presence  of  the  body  in  the  bread.  He  must  have  already  felt 
what  he  afterwards  describes  in  the  above  letter  :  "  But,"  says  he, 
"  I  am  held  in  bondage  and  cannot  escape;  the  text  stands  here 
too  strong."  The  result  was  that,  as  others  actually  went  to 
greater  lengths  in  the  question  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  just 
as  in  that  relating  to  infant  baptism,  Luther  simply  maintained 
in  opposition  those  doctrines  whose  fundamental  principles  had 
before  the  rise  of  the  mooted  questions  been  firmly  and  independ- 
ently established  in  his  own  mind ;  and  he  did  so,  furthermore, 
with  a  positiveness  which  seemed  to  indicate  that  the  counter- 
arguments now  advanced  had  in  them  essentially  nothing  new  of 
sufficient  weight  to  make  any  impression  upon  him.  Indeed,  his 
expositions  have,  in  this  instance,  from  the  very  beginning,  even 
in  their  minor  specifications,  a  still  firmer  tone  of  assurance  than 
his  first  utterances  against  the  Anabaptists. 

Of  significance,  as  related  to  his  previous  as  well  as  to  his 
future  point  of  view,  is,  at  the  outset,  his  first  reply  to  Speratus, 
in  which  he  affirms  that  that  opinion  of  the  Brethren  is,  as  he 
understands  it,  "not  very  unlike  the  truth":  but  he  would  like 
to  see  "  that  men  would  not  trouble  themselves  greatly  about 
these  things,  but  directly  and  implicitly  believe  that  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  altar  the  body  {Leichnam)  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
truthfully  present ;  and  that  we  should  not  inquire  further  how  or 
in  what  form  they  are  present,  since  Christ  has  not  told  us  espe- 
cially anything  about  that."  His  principle  is,  that  we  should 
abide  simply  by  the  words  given  in  the  Scriptures. 

In  the  year  1523,  he  addressed  to  the  Brethren  his  treatise,  Vom 


64  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Anbete7i  des  Sacraments  des  heiligen  Leichnams  Clirisii}  He 
refers  in  the  Introduction  to  a  little  book  of  the  Brethren  for  the 
instruction  of  children,  composed  in  the  German  and  Bohemian 
languages,  which  teaches  "  that  Christ  is  in  the  sacrament  not 
independently  or  naturally  (cf.  supra  :  cum  naturali  substantia), 
and  also  that  the  sacrament  is  not  to  be  adored."  The  book  in 
question  was  a  catechism  composed  by  the  Senior,  Lucas. 

He  then  proposes  to  consider,  how  "  so  many  frivolous  spirits 
have  taken  offence  '"  at  Christ's  words  of  institution,  upon  which 
everything  depends  (cf.  p.  69).  He  does  not  further  designate 
the  parties  whom  he  has  in  mind ;  but  the  section  following 
leads  the  reader  naturally  to  think  of  the  interpretation  proposed 
by  Honius. 

In  the  first  place,  for  instance,  he  proceeds  to  say,  some  have 
held  that  there  is  simply  bread  and  wine  in  the  sacrament — that 
the  bread  only  signifies  the  body  of  Christ,  and,  likewise,  the  wine 
His  blood.  Against  this,  he  first  of  all  presents  the  warning  to 
which  he  throughout  the  entire  controversy  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper  constantly  returns,  namely,  that  we  should  let  reason  go, 
which  cannot,  indeed,  comprehend  the  presence  of  the  flesh  and 
blood.  Instead  of  reason,  we  must  abide  in  simplicity  by  the 
woids  of  Christ,  who  will  not  deceive  us.  It  is  a  sacrilege  to  give 
to  a  divine  word,  without  a  reason  from  Scripture  or  a  clearly 
expressed  declaration  of  Scripture,  any  other  than  the  natural 
(proper)  signification.  If  we  allow  this  sacrilege  at  one  place, 
we  cannot  prevent  it  at  other  places.  The  passages,  i  Cor.  x.  4 
and  Matt.  xvi.  18  (quoted  by  Honius),  prove  nothing  against  this 
principle.  Paul  does  not  there  say  that  the  natural  rock  which 
Moses  struck  is  Christ :  but  he  speaks  of  a  real  spiritual  rock, 
from  which  faith  is  nourished,  and  this  does  not  merely  signify 
Christ,  but  is  Christ ;  in  like  manner,  reference  is  made  in  Matt. 
xvi.  only  to  this  spiritual  rock.  Faith  compels  us  not  to  take  the 
rock  here  in  a  natural  sense,  but  to  understand  it  of  a  spiritual 
rock ;  since  faith  will  not  endure  the  thought  that  Christendom 
should  build  upon  a  material  rock  (Matt,  xvi.)  ,  or  that  Christ 
should  be  a  natural  stone  (i  Cor.  x.).  But  that  the  bread  is  the 
body  of  Christ  is  a  statement  which  faith  endures,  and  opposes 

lErl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  388  sqq.  Cf.  Lasicius,  Lib.  IV.,  Sect.  21.  I  do  not 
know  upon  what  grounds  Gindely  affirms  that  this  writing  of  Luther  had 
already  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Brethren  and  translated  by  them  in  1522. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  65 

in  no  single  passage,  just  as  we  find  even  in  nature,  e.  g.,  two 
natures  in  the  glowing  iron,  and  say,  "  the  iron  is  fire,"  and  as 
we  say  also  of  Christ,  "  the  man  is  God."  If  there  be  now 
nothing  to  compel  faith  to  do  otherwise,  we  must,  as  has  been 
said,  let  every  word  stand  in  its  natural  significance.  In  all  these 
discussions  we  have  already  propositions  around  which  was  waged 
the  succeeding  controversy  between  Luther,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Zwingli  and  Oecolanipadius  upon  the  other.  Luther  himself 
afterwards,  in  the  midst  of  that  controversy,  referred  to  these 
earlier  utterances,  asserting  that  he  had,  in  his  letter  to  the  Wal- 
denses,  already  refuted  the  "  Significationists  "  before  anybody 
had  ever  thought  that  they  were  coming.^ 

As  a  further  error,  Luther  instances  the  opinion  that,  accord- 
ing to  I  Cor.  X.  16,  17  (cf.  the  propositions  of  the  Brethren), 
the  essence  of  the  sacrament  consists  merely  in  the  incorpora- 
tion {Einvcrkibuug)  into  the  spiritual \ioAy  oi  Christ,  and  that 
bread  and  wine  were  appointed  merely  as  a  certain  sign  for 
(to  indicate)  this  incorporation  and  for  the  exercise  of  the  spir- 
itual body.  According  to  this  view,  the  individual  believer,  in 
the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  enjoys  and  participates 
with  the  other  members  of  Christ's  body  in  everything  which  His 
body  does  and  suffers,  although  the  latter,  meanwhile,  is  not 
itself  present  in  the  sacrament,  and  although  the  participation  in 
question  is  effected,  not  by  virtue  of  the  bread  or  the  eating,  but 
by  virtue  of  the  divine  promise.  And  the  very  congregation  itself, 
whose  head  is  Christ,  is  supposed  to  typify  His  spiritual  body. 
These  propositions  cannot  fail  to  remind  us  most  forcibly  of 
Luther's  own  utterances  in  his  Sermon  vom  hochwilrdigcn  Sacra- 
ment, of  the  year  15 19.  His  fundamental  idea  in  the  conception 
of  the  sacrament  was  there  this  very  incorporation  into  Christ,  and 
into  the  communion  of  saints,  which  typifies  His  spiritual  body. 
Whereas  he  had  there,  however,  regarded  as  a  sure  sign  of  such 
incorporation  not  simple  bread,  but  rather  the  bread  transformed 
into  the  body  of  Christ,  and  thus  the  truly  present  body  of 
Christ, — he  now,  on  the  other  hand,  in  opposition  to  this  new 
doctrine,  preserves  a  perfectly  clear  line  of  distinction  between 
the  spiritual  {geistig)  body  of  Christ,  which  we  as  believers  con- 
stitute, and  the  natural  body,  which  is  given  and  distributed  for 

'  Briefe,  iii,  202. 


66  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

US,  and  thus  for  the  spiritual  body.  Referring  to  the  apostolic 
statement  in  i  Cor.  x.  i6,  he  pronounces  the  conclusion  drawn 
from  it  by  the  opposing  party  as  at  least  without  sufficient  support, 
inasmuch  as  it  might  be  said,  in  refutation  of  it,  that  Paul  is  not 
in  this  passage  attempting  to  express  what  the  bread  is  in  itself 
by  virtue  Of  the  consecration,  but  that  he,  on  the  contrary,  pre- 
sumes that  the  Corinthians  already  know  this,  and  speaks  only  of 
the  use  and  benefit  of  the  sacrament,  just  as  he  also,  in  verse  17, 
tells  not  what  the  bread  is,  but  what  it  gives.  Even  if  Paul 
should  by  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  mean  that  we  are 
to  enjoy  all  the  blessings  which  Christ  has  secured  by  (the  giving 
of)  Plis  body,  yet  this  idea,  in  which  there  is,  indeed,  much  truth, 
would  still  furnish  no  evidence  for  the  assertion  that  the  body  of 
Christ  is  not  also  really  present  in  the  sacrament.  Such  a  pres- 
ence would  not  be  excluded  by  the  interpretation  in  question.  If 
we  now  recur  to  the  above-mentioned  Sei-mon,  we  will  find  that 
Luther  had  there  actually  adopted  such  an  interpretation  of  the 
immediately  succeeding  words  of  Paul,  without  at  all  inferring 
from  it  that  the  natural  body  was  not  present  in  the  bread. 
He  now,  however,  carries  out  still  further  the  exegesis  of  the  words 
themselves.  While,  as  above,  even  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
sense  of  the  words  was  such  as  was  claimed,  rejecting  the  con- 
clusion drawn,  he  now,  on  the  other  hand,  maintains  the  proper 
and  certain  sense  of  the  words  to  be  :  *'  When  we  eat  such  bread, 
we  all  together,  each  as  much  as  the  other,  receive  and  enjoy  not 
simply  bread,  but  the  body  of  Christ."  In  the  "  communion  of 
the  body  of  Christ,"  which  Paul  declares  the  bread  broken  by  us 
to  be,  he  sees  a  common  enjoyment  of  the  real,  natural  body  of 
Christ  by  all  who  break  the  bread,  /.  e.,  who  participate  in  the 
celebration  of  the  sacrament.  He  depends,  in  support  of  his 
interpretation,  mainly  upon  the  apostle's  declaration  concerning 
the  "  breaking."  This,  says  he,  without  doubt  means  the  hand- 
ling of  the  sacrament  in  giving  and  taking.  Hence,  the  apostle 
is  speaking  of  that  communion  which  the  "  breakers  of  the  sacra- 
ment "  (each  one  as  much  as  any  other)  enjoy.  He  cannot, 
moreover,  have  in  view  that  spiritual  communion  in  the  body  of 
Christ  to  which  the  words  were  applied  by  the  exegesis  above 
referred  to,  since  that  spiritual  communion  is  not  enjoyed  by  all 
who  break  the  bread,  although  they  all  have  (part  in)  the  sacra- 
mental communion.     Thus  Luther  not  only  finds  in  i  Cor.  x.  a 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE    WARTBURG.  67 

testimony  to  the  real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment; but  the  passage  further  conveys  for  him  especially  the( 
idea,  that  there  is  a  reception  of  this  body  upon  the  part  of  such 
also  as  are  not  spiritually  united  to  Christ,  /.  e.,  upon  the  part 
of  every  one  who,  with  other  participants,  receives  the  bread. 
The  doctrine,  that  unworthy  guests  at  the  communion  also  receive 
the  body  of  the  Lord,  is  thus  here  already  plainly  enough  ex- 
pressed. In  Luther" s  own  mind  it  had  doubtless  before  this  time 
been  held  in  connection  with  his  unwavering  faith  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body,  even  though  he  had  not  hitherto  been  led  to 
speak  of  it  specifically..  Our  rather  extended  examination  of  this 
section  of  the  letter  to  the  Bohemian  Brethren  finds  its  justifica- 
tion in  the  facts,  that  the  position  of  Luther  in  this  passage  is 
pre-eminently  characteristic,  as  indicating  the  historical  develop- 
ment of  his  theory ;  that  great  stress  is  laid  upon  this  passage 
also  in  the  succeeding  conflicts ;  and,  still  further,  that  Luther 
ever  after  clung  tenaciously  to  the  interpretation  here  given. 

Luther  then  himself  proceeds,  after  having  shown  the  proper 
sense  of  the  passage,  to  an  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  that 
Christians  are,  indeed,  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  and  that  they 
all  together  constitute  one  bread,  one  drink,  one  spirit — that  we 
become  such  a  one  body  by  a  common  participation  in  the  One 
body  of  Christ,  one  bread  and  drink  by  the  reception  of  the  One 
bread  and  drink — and  that  this  is,  moreover,  indicated  by  the 
natural  bread  formed  from  many  grains  and  the  natural  wine 
made  from  many  separate  grapes  (cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  339). 

Speratus  had  also,  in  his  correspondence  with  Luther,  inquired 
whence  the  words  of  consecration,  by  whose  use  the  presence  of 
Christ's  body  was  secured,  have  such  power.  The  latter  replies, 
as  hitherto  :  It  comes  from  the  divine  promise.  And  although 
this  power  (as  he  held  in  accord  with  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church)  is  not  forfeited  by  the  lack  of  faith  in  the  consecrating 
priest,  he  yet  now  intones  with  special  emphasis  the  statement, 
that  it  is  yet  faith  alone  which,  by  virtue  of  these  words,  conse- 
crates. Even  the  unbelieving  priest  yet  consecrates  in  the  faith 
of  the  Church,  since  he  performs  the  act  upon  the  command  and 
authority  of  the  Church.' 

'  Briefe,  ii,  211.  In  support  of  the  view  that  through  the  words  of  conse- 
cration the  body  becomes  present,  compare  Luther's  declaration,  Erl.  Ed., 
xxviii,  295  (in  the  tract,  Von  beider  Gestalt,  etc.,  1522:  "for  even  the  sac- 


68  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

In  regard  to  the  association  {Ziisammensein)  of  the  bread  and 
the  body  in  the  sacrament,  we  have  already  been  referred  to  the 
comparisons  with  glowing  iron  and  with  the  unity  of  the  divine 
and  the  human  in  Christ.  The  present  document  affords  us,  as 
compared  with  the  treatise  upon  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  no 
new  statements  upon  this  point. 

But  Luther  now  further  applies  the  principle,  that  we  should 
abide  in  simplicity  by  the  words  of  Christ,  with  special  reference 
to  the  question  whether,  with  the  presence  of  Christ's  body  in  the 
sacrament,  we  are  to  hold  also  an  immediate  presence  of  the 
entire  Christ  and  the  entire  Deity.  The  discussion  as  to  the 
adoration  of  the  sacrament  also  led  to  the  consideration  of  this 
point,  since  all  there  depended  upon  whether  He,  to  whom  alone 
adoration  belongs,  is  really  present  in  the  sacrament.  This  is  the 
question  as  to  the  "  Concomitance,"  discussed  in  Luther's  letter 
of  June  13,  1522,'  and  in  the  tract,  Voni  Anbeten  des  Sacraments. 

Upon  the  part  of  the  Brethren,  as  we  see  at  once  from  the 
above  letter,  an  explanation  was  desired  as  to  "  how  the  Deity  is 
there  concomitantly  comprehended."  Many,  says  the  tract,  Voin 
Anbeten,  etc.,  have  greatly  concerned  themselves  to  know  how  the 
soul  and  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and,  accordingly,  the  Deity,  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  in  the  sacrament.  All  such  questions 
Luther  casts  aside  as  an  unnecessary  and  destructive  prying  into 
hidden  mysteries.  He  fears  that  they  will  only  sow  broadcast 
the  seed  for  a  crop  of  new  scruples,  and  that  men  will,  while 
remanding  faith  to  the  background,  be  led  to  take  up  again  with 
the  whole  mass  of  senseless  trash  which  the  natural  reason  and 
philosophy  in  former  days  hatched  out  concerning  infinity, 
vacuity,  quantity,  substance,  etc.  "  Let  the  very  smart  and  un- 
believing sophists,"  says  he  in  the  tract,  "  worry  themselves  about 
such  unfathomable  things,  and  conjure  the  Deity  into  the  sacra- 
ment :  the  body  which  thou  takest — the  Word  which  thou  hear- 
est,  is  that  of  Him  who  grasps  the  whole  nwrld  in  His  hand  and 
who  is  in  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ;  be  thou  content,  then,  with 
this."     Similarly,  he  writes  in  the  letter,  that  faith  has  enough  in 

rament  itself  is  made  and  blessed  by  the  Word  of  God ;  "  further,  also,  touch- 
ing the  original  institution  of  the  Supper,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  67  (  Vofn  Missbrack 
der  Messe)  :  "  Christ  takes  bread  and  wine,  and  by  the  Word  which  He  speaks 
makes  of  them  His  body  and  blood." 
'  Briefe,  ii,  209  sq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE    WARTEURG.  69 

the  knowledge  that  "  under  the  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ  the 
living  and  reigning^  He  is  not  wiUing  to  understand  by  "  con- 
comitance "  anything  more  than  this. 

In  accordance  with  this,  his  doctrine  of  the  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood,  he  then  decides  also  the  question  as  to  the 
adoration.  He  will  hear  nothing  of  the  propositions  advanced 
in  support  of  the  "  concomitance."  He  is  fully  satisfied  with  that 
which  he  has  himself  in  his  letter  described  as  concomitance,  /.  c, 
the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  oj  the  Christ  to  whom  adora- 
tion belongs.  Faith,  says  he  in  the  letter,  adores  only  in  the  sense 
that  it  holds  before  the  mind  only  the  One  whose  body  and  blood 
are  for  it  beyond  doubt  present  in  the  sacrament.  The  Brethren 
had  claimed  that  the  presence  of  Christ  is  not  always  the  same ; 
that  He  is  present  in  different  ways  in  the  sacrament  and  in 
heaven ;  and  that  He  is  present  also  in  His  saints,  or  Christian 
believers.  In  response  to  this,  Luther  acknowledges  (cf.  the 
above  tract  and  letter)  that  Christ  has,  indeed,  ascended  to 
heaven  in  order  that  men  might  be  bound  and  compelled  to  adore 
Him,  and  to  confess  that  He  is  Lord  over  all ;  and  that  He  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  present  in  the  sacrament  and  in  the  hearts  of 
believers,  not  for  the  particular  purpose  of  receiving  adoration, 
but  in  order  therein  to  deal  with  us  and  help  us.  He,  however, 
observes  that  Christ  was  once  on  earth,  not  in  order  that  He 
might  be  adored,  but  in  order  to  minister  to  us,  and  that  He 
nevertheless  accepted  adoration  from  many  persons.  He  even 
recognizes  a  certain  adoration  of  Christ  in  the  persons  of  His 
saints.  Although  His  presence  in  man  is  for  the  most  part  not 
so  certain  as  His  presence  in  the  sacrament,  we  yet  read  in 
I  Cor.  xiv.  25  of  the  unbelieving  man  who  will  worship  God  in 
His  saints  when  he  hears  them  prophesy.  And  when  we  greet 
one  another  with  mutual  respect,  what  is  it  but  an  honoring  and 
worshiping  God  in  one  another?  But  Luther  will  not  allow  such 
adoration  to  be  thought  of  as  in  any  sense  commanded ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  left  as  a  matter  of  free  choice  to  every 
one,  since  Christ  Himself  has  given  us  no  commandment  to 
adore  Him  in  the  sacrament  or  in  believing  hearts. 

Thus  does  Luther  hold  strenuously  to  the  presence  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  exalted,  adorable  Christ  in  the  sacrament. 

Nevertheless,  with  all  his  insistence  upon  this,  he  has  yet,  as 
before  (cf .  the  introduction  to  his  letter,  as  above) ,  sought  to  lay 


70  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  chief  emphasis  again  upon  the  words  of  the  institution.  Let 
us  observe  more  particularly  how  he  has  here  expressed  himself 
upon  this  point.  He  has  now,  we  are  told,  already  frequently 
said  that  in  the  sacrament  the  most  prominent  thing  and  the 
principal  part  {des  Vornehmst  und  Hauptsiilck)  is  the  Word  of 
Christ :  "  Take  and  eat,  this  is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you," 
etc.  Everything  depends  altogether  and  entirely  upon  these 
words.  They  are  words  of  life  and  of  salvation,  so  that  whoever 
believes  them  has,  through  such  faith,  the  forgiveness  of  all  his 
sins,  and  is  a  child  of  life.  These  words  are  unutterably  great — 
the  summary  of  the  entire  Gospel.  Such  importance  is  con- 
stantly attached  by  Luther  to  these  words  because,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  them  if  promised  and  imparted  to  faith  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  based  upon  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  thus 
secured.  That  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  which  is  effected 
under  the  bread  and  wine,  by  the  power  of  these  very  same  words, 
appears,  therefore,  even  now  only  as  a  peculiarly  exalted  sign 
and  pledge,  which  is  appended  to  the  promise,  the  promise  itself 
being  the  real  redemptive  blessing  {Heilsgiit)  of  the  sacrament. 

Luther  proceeds  to  say,  that  very  much  more  importance 
attaches  to  these  words  {aji  diesen  Worten  7veit  mch?-  gelegcn) 
than  to  the  sacrament  itself>  and  that  a  Christian  should  accustom 
himself  to  pay  much  more  regard  to  them  than  to  the  latter.  He 
warns  against  a  glorifying  and  worshiping  of  the  sacrament,  in 
which  the  attention  is  not,  first  of  all,  believingly  directed  upon 
the  words.  Then  only  does  the  treatise  advance  to  a  discussion 
of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood,  and,  still  further,  of  the 
reason  and  method  of  the  proper  adoration. 

We  must  yet,  in  conclusion,  add  to  the  utterances  of  Luther 
touching  the  adoration  of  the  sacrament  the  emphatic  declaration 
with  which  he  here  again  returns  to  the  statements  concerning 
the  Word  with  which  he  opened  the  discussion.  After  having 
justified  the  adoration,  but  yet  left  the  practice  to  the  free  choice 
of  the  communicant,  he  again  points  us  to  the  words  of  institution. 
They,  says  he,  teach  us  to  consider  why  Christ  is  here.  And 
whoever  thus  apprehends  the  sacrament  in  the  Word  will,  in  the 
presence  of  the  sacrament,  entirely  forget  his  own  adoration  of  it 
and  his  own  deeds,  just  as  the  apostles  did  at  their  evening  meal, 
and  as  reverent  hearers  of  the  Gospel,  to  whom,  nevertheless, 
belongs  the  very  greatest  honor  ("  since  God  is  more  intimately 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  7 1 

present  in  them  than  Christ  in  the  bread  and  wine  "),  yet  only 
sit  still  and  listen,  without  thinking  of  the  reverence  which  they 
are  manifesting  for  the  Word.  Yea,  they  are  the  most  secure 
and  best  (communicants)  who  "  are  altogether  engaged  with  the 
words  of  the  sacrament,  in  order  that  they  may  feed  their  faith 
and  receive  bread  and  wine  with  Christ's  body  and  blood  as  a 
sure  sign  of  this  same  Word  and  faiths  Seldom,  perhaps,  do 
they  fall  so  low  as  to  concern  themselves  about  the  rendering  of 
adoration  and  reverence.  Let  one  but  exercise  faith  aright  in 
the  first  part  of  the  sacrament,  /.  e.,  the  words,  and  the  adoration 
will  afterwards  come  in  very  suitably  of  itself;  and  even  if  it 
should  not  follow,  no  sin  would  be  committed  by  its  neglect. 
Where,  on  the  other  hand,  faith  is  not  right,  or  is  not  exercised 
in  the  Word,  there  no  one  can  teach  a  proper  adoration. 


bb.  Defence  of  the  Bodily  Presence  against  Carlstadt. 

CARLSTADT'S      "remembrance"      is      SELF-RIGHTOUSNESS «'Toi;i-o" 

REFERS    TO    BREAD  ;    "  GIVEN  "    TO    DISTRIBUTION THE    WORD    VS. 

REASON FORGIVENESS    OF    SINS    BESTOWED BODILY    PRESENCE    IN 

SACRAMENT   AND  IN  HEAVEN SYNECDOCHE SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE 

WORD RELATION    OF    TWO    NAIURES    IN    CHRIST. 

After  the  decisive  way  in  which  Luther  had  expressed  himself 
against  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  and  particularly  after  the  con- 
demnation which  he  had,  from  the  very  beginning,  visited  upon 
the  entire  tendency  represented  by  the  New  Prophets,  it  was  not 
to  be  expected  that  Carlstadt's  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper  would 
in  any  degree  unsettle  his  own  convictions. 

He  was  very  soon  compelled  to  note  the  rapid  spread  of  this 
doctrine,  according  to  which  not  only  were  the  bread  and  wine 
now  reduced  to  a  bare  sign,  but  the  essence  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  itself  was  located,  not  in  the  divine  gift,  but  rather  in  the 
human  act,  the  exaltation  of  man  by  his  own  energy  to  God. 
Already  he  designates  Zwingli  and  Leo  Judae  as  adherents  of  the 
view  introduced  by  Carlstadt.'  But  only  the  more  energetically 
does  he  on  that  account  himself  contend  against  them. 

But  how  deeply  Luther,  in  his  publication.  Wider  die  himm- 

>Briefe,  11,557,  571. 


72  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

lischen  Propheteti,  uncovered  the  contradiction  which  this  theory 
involved  in  the  whole  conception  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  and 
especially  in  the  view  held  touching  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  have 
already  observed.  In  the  "  remembrance  of  Christ,"  in  which 
the  essence  of  the  celebration  was  upon  Carlstadt's  theory  sup- 
posed to  consist,  he  recognized  again  a  new  form  of  legality,  a 
new  work-righteousness.  By  his  descanting  upon  the  remem- 
brance and  the  apprehension  of  Christ,  upon  fervent  heat  and 
self-mortification,  Carlstadt  was  but  raising  mists  and  clouds 
about  the  clear  words  of  Christ :  "  My  blood  is  shed  for  you  for 
the  remission  of  sins  " — which  words  are  comprehended,  secured 
and  retained  by  faith  alone,  and  by  no  work.  Even  though  such 
remembrance  were  pure  ardor,  heart-heat  and  fire,  he  can  see 
nothing  to  come  of  it  but  fresh  hypocrisy,  and  fresh  anxiety  and 
distress  for  timid  consciences,  just  as  such  were  accustomed  to 
torture  themselves  under  the  Papacy  about  a  vvorthy  receiving  of 
the  body  of  Christ.  He  declares,  on  the  other  hand:  ^'This 
apprehension  helps,  if  I  with  true  faith  firmly  hold  that  Christ's 
body  and  blood  are  given  for  me,  for  me,  for  me — to  atone  for 
my  sins — as  the  words  in  the  sacrament  declare." 

As  to  the  pledge  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  in  the 
sacrament  involved  in  the  words  of  institution,  it  can  have  occa- 
sioned Luther  but  small  effort  to  refute  Carlstadt's  strange  exe- 
gesis of  the  language  employed.  In  the  sentence,  "  Take,  eat, 
this  is  my  body,"  etc.,  a  new  thought  is  introduced,  according  to 
Carlstadt,  with  the  word  "  this."  Christ,  he  taught,  with  the  word 
"  this  "  {tovto)  pointed  to  His  body,  in  which  He  was  then  sitting  at 
the  table,  and  said  of  //,  that  It  would  now  be  given  over  to  suffer- 
ing and  death.  The  taking  and  eating,  he  claimed,  relate  to  the 
bare  bread, — and  to  this  eating  of  the  bread,  then,  the  words  of 
the  Lord  which  follow,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  are 
supposed  to  refer.  According  to  a  later  remark  of  Luther,'  Carl- 
stadt had  drawn  his  first  ideas  concerning  the  tovto  from  the  text, 
Mk.  xiv,  23,  24.  Since  it  appears,  from  the  account  there  given, 
that  the  disciples  had  already  all  drunken  from  the  cup  before 
Christ  said  :  "  This  is  my  blood,"  Carlstadt,  therefore,  concluded 
that  Christ  in  that  declaration,  made  immediately  afterw'ard, 
pointed  to  the  blood  /;/  His  body  sitting  there  (not  to  any  blood 

»  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  308. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  73 

offered  to  them  in  the  cup),  since  the  cup  had  now  certainly 
been  aheady  drained.  Luther  disposes  with  ridicule  of  the  argu- 
ment that  Tovro  has  a  capital  initial  letter ;  and  hkewise  of  the 
assertion  that  tovto,  being  neuter,  cannot  refer  to  apTog.  Here, 
says  he,  a  man  who  has  scarcely  seen  the  A  B  C  of  the  Greek 
language  professes  to  understand  Greek  better  than  a  born 
Grecian.  Luther  had  heard  orally  presented  the  further  argu- 
ment, that  Christ  had  also  in  Matt.  xvi.  18  ("Thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock,"  etc.  ") first  spoken  of  Peter  (whose  name 
signifies  "  rock  "),  and  then  immediately  diverted  the  thought 
to  that  other  Rock  upon  which  the  Church  was  to  be  founded.' 
To  this  he  replies,  that  it  must,  first  of  all,  be  proved  by  clear 
text  of  Scripture  that  this  is  also,  and  must  be,  the  case  with  the 
words  employed  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  has  been  only 
asserted,  not  proved.  Faith  desires,  as  he  has  often  before 
affirmed,  to  have  the  Word  of  God  which  shall  bluntly  assert  that 
it  is  thus,  and  not  otherwise. 

Carlstadt's  explanation  did  not  lead  to  any  controversy  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  "  is,"  as  it  also  accepted  this  word  in  its 
proper  signification.  The  ground  of  the  discussion  lay  in  different 
conceptions  of  the  subject  of  which  the  "  is,"  etc.,  is  predicated. 

If  we  now  proceed  to  examine  Luther's  own  exegesis  of  the 
words  of  institution,  we  find  that  he  not  only  understands  the 
TOVTO  as  meaning  the  bread,  but  that  he  also  refers  the  words 
"  given  for  you  "  to  the  bestowal  in  the  sacrament,  and  not  to 
Christ's  giving  up  of  Himself  to  death,*  In  support  of  this  posi- 
tion he  appeals  to  the  fact  that  the  prophets  never  speak  of  a 
body  and  blood  which  is  to  be  given  for  sin,  but  only  of  the 
suffering  of  the  whole  person — and,  further,  that  a  separation  of 
the  body  and  blood  in  the  suffering  would  not  have  bean  neces- 
sary and  could  not  have  been  made.  The  whole  Christ  was 
called  upon  to  suffer,  but  at  the  table  He  divides  in  such  a  way 
as  to  give  the  body  to  eat,  and  the  blood  to  drink.  No  less 
positively  does  Luther  maintain  in  explanation  of  the  "  broken  " 
body,  I  Cor.  xi.  24,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  tovto  in  Paul  also  refers 
to  the  bread,  the  bread  itself  is  the  broken  body,  and   hence 

'  Cf.,  in  connection  with  this  interpretation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  295. 

^  Yet   in  the  tract,  Vom  Misbratirh   der  Afesse,    Erl.    Ed.,  xxviii,  So  sq., 
Luther  himself  had  referred  these  words  to  the  atoning  death  of  Christ. 


74  I'HE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

necessarily  "  this  breaking  must  be  continued  in  the  Supper  and 
in  the  eating  at  the  table."  Thus,  it  is  nothing  else  than  the 
distribution  of  the  body  to  the  congregation.  Moreover,  the 
body  is  distributed  whole  and  perfect  in  all  the  pieces  of  the 
bread.  It  was  objected,  that  it  should  then  be  said  "  broken 
among  us,"  rather  than  "  for  us."  The  latter  expression  is  used, 
according  to  Luther,  because  this  breaking  of  the  bread  and  of 
the  body  occur  for  our  benefit,  in  order  to  deliver  us  fiom  sin; 
for  Christ  has  deposited  the  energy  and  power  of  His  suffering 
in  the  sacrament,  so  that  we  might  there  seek  and  find  it, 
according  to  the  significance  of  the  words  :  "  This  is  my  body, 
which  is  given  for  you  for  the  remission  of  sins." 

Luther  also  again  cites  against  Carlstadt  the  exegesis  of  i  Cor. 
X.  1 6  which  we  have  already  found  in  his  earlier  writings,  desig- 
nating this  passage  a  "  thunderbolt  upon  the  head  of  Carlstadt 
and  all  that  crowd".  It  is  in  vain,  says  he,  that  Carlstadt  tries 
to  turn  the  edge  of  the  weapon  by  representing  the  communion 
as  a  spiritual  one,  L  e.,  that  they  only  are  to  have  such  com- 
munion of  the  body  of  Christ  who  "  with  lolling  desire  meditate 
upon  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  suffer  with  Him,"  etc.  Against 
this  idea,  as  against  the  interpretations  above  cited,  he  asserts 
that  the  communion  of  the  body  consists  in  this,  that  those  who 
receive  the  broken  bread,  each  one  his  own  morsel,  receive 
therein  the  body  of  Christ — that  each  one  receives  with  the 
others  the  common  body  of  Christ.  As  this  already  involves  a 
participation  in  the  body  of  Christ  upon  the  part  of  all  who  par- 
ticipate in  the  breaking  of  the  bread,  and  as  he  here  again 
emphatically  maintains  this  in  opposition  to  the  supposed  "  spirit- 
ual communion,"  he  now  still  further  supports  the  view  of  a 
participation  by  the  uinuorthy  by  a  special  appeal  to  i  Cor.  xi. 
29  and  27.  The  passage  in  i  Cor.  x.  must  also,  he  claims,  be 
understood  of  a  bodily  communion  shared  by  both  the  holy  and 
the  unholy. 

Thus,  then,  does  Luther,  in  opposing  Carlstadt,  as  elsewhere, 
build  entirely  upon  the  actual  words  of  Scripture.  "  I  see  here," 
says  he,  "  bare,  clear,  powerful  words  which  compel  me,  etc. ; 
*  *  *  how  Christ  is  brought  into  the  sacrament  I  do  not 
know  ;  but  this  I  well  know,  that  the  Word  of  God  cannot  lie, 
and  this  Word  declares  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  in 
the  sacrament."     He  repeats,  that  we  dare  not  depart  from  the 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT    THE    WARTEURG.  75 

plainest  natural  sense  of  the  -words  unless  compelled  by  a  perfectly 
clear  article  of  faith.  "  The  natural  language  is  the  Empress, 
and  takes  precedence  of  all  subtle,  acute  and  sophistical  inter- 
pretations." He  places  the  new  and  self-conceited  spiritual 
exegesis  in  the  same  category  as  the  ancient  allegorizing,  which 
we  have  long  since  found  him  denouncing  as  he  proclaimed  his 
fundamental  principle  of  scriptural  interpretation.'  In  this  way 
also,  says  he,  the  great  teacher,  Origen,  played  the  fool  and  mis- 
led many.  There  would  thus  remain  not  a  single  letter  of  the 
Scriptures  secure  against  assaults  of  the  spiritual  jugglers.  With 
the  greatest  energy  does  Luther,  now  and  in  the  entire  succeed- 
ing sacramental  controversy,  endeavor  to  ward  off  objections 
raised  by  reason  against  the  divine  Word,  and  especially  against 
religious  truth.  In  a  special  section  of  the  publication  now  before 
us,  he  has  undertaken  to  treat  "  of  Madam  Hulda,  the  shrewd 
Reason  " — of  the  conclusions  by  which  she  seeks,  in  pure  wan- 
tonness, to  set  aside  the  foundation  of  correct  doctrine  derived 
from  the  Word  of  God. 

Luther  could  regard  it  as  nothing  less  than  a  bold  and  frivolous 
assumption  of  reason,  when  Carlstadt  scornfully  inquired,  whether 
the  bread  was  to  be  made  any  better  by  the  breathing  and  hissing 
out  of  the  words  of  consecration.  The  divine  Word,  upon  whose 
testimony  he  relies,  is  for  him  sufficient  to  produce  also  by  its 
own  power  the  presence  of  the  body.^  "  We  do  not,"  says  he, 
"  blow  nor  hiss  above  the  bread  and  wine ;  but  we  speak  the 
divine,  almighty,  heavenly  words  which  Christ  HimseK  spake  at 
the  Supper  with  His  holy  mouth." 

He  charges,  further,  upon  Carlstadt  a  plain  perversion  of  the 
doctrine  which  he  had  in  his  previous  writings  already  clearly 
enough  presented,  when  the  latter  offers  the  objection,  that  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  had  been  already  purchased  by  Christ  on  the 
cross,  and  dare  not,  therefore,  now  be  sought  in  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  now  proposes,  therefore,  to  express  himself  once 
more  upon  this  point  right  "  plainly  and  bluntly."  It  is  true, 
that  Q,\\x\%\.  purchased  the  forgiveness  of  sins  on  the  cross,  and  not 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  the  purchase  was  there  made  once 
(once  for  all).     But  Christ  did  not  dispense  i^austheilen)  forgive- 

'  Cf.  Vol.  L,  p.  434.  '■'  Cf.  supra,  p.  67. 

'^  In  illustration  cf  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  as  the  spirit- 


76  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ness  on  the  cross,  but  in  the  Gospel  and  sacrament.  It  is  here 
that  we  find  the  Word,  which  dispenses,  bestows  and  presents  to 
us  the  forgiveness  purchased  on  the  cross.  And  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  Luther  here  insists  especially  upon  that  particular 
Word  which  offers  us  in  the  sacrament  itself  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  as  given /<?/-  us.  At  the  same  time,  however,  he  locates 
this  dispensing  also  in  the  Gospel  in  general,  wherever  it  is 
preached.  It  has  taken  place  even  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  in  the  Word  of  salvation,  which  was  announced  to  the  race 
already  before  the  death  of  Christ.  For,  since  Christ  (as  already 
pre-existing)  had  decided  to  purchase  forgiveness  for  men,  He 
could  dispense  it  just  as  well  before  as  afterward  through  His 
\\'ord.  In  this  sense,  also,  the  Lamb  of  God  was,  according  to 
Rev.  xiii.  8,  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Thus  Luther 
not  only  seeks  to  maintain  for  the  Word  and  sacrament  in  gen- 
eral a  significance  in  addition  to  that  of  the  sacrificial  death  of 
Christ,  but  he  now  also  positively  demands  that,  in  order  to  enjoy 
the  fruits  of  the  latter,  believers  must  hold  fast  to  these  means  of 
grace  and  appropriate  what  they  offer — and  he  maintains  this  in 
opposition  to  the  idea,  that  we,  by  an  impulse  from  within,  and 
by  worship  and  spiritual  exercise  of  our  own,  can  and  must  lift 
ourselves  up  to  (a  reception  of)  the  salvation  purchased  by 
Christ.  I  must  not  flee  to  the  cross,  nor,  with  Carlstadt,  to  the 
memory  and  apprehension  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  for  there  I 
can  still  not  find  forgiveness.  I  must  cling  to  the  sacrament,  or 
Gospel.  Carlstadt,  says  Luther,  shows  us  the  sacred  mystery 
{NciHgthufn)  only  as  through  a  glass,  or  in  a  vessel,  so  that  we 
may  see  and  smell  until  we  are  satisfied — or,  rather,  only  as  in  a 
dream.  He  does  not  give  it  to  us,  does  not  open  it  up  to  us, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  beclouds  the  Word  which  gives  us  the 
treasure. 

Meanwhile,  Carlstadt  advanced  also  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood,  which  he  had  interpreted  out  of 
the  formula  of  institution,  arguments  drawn  from  other  passages 

ual  blessing  offered  in  the  supper,  cf.  Vol,  I.,  p.  347;  also,  the  "sermon" 
of  Maunday  Thursday,  1521,  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  68  sqq.  ;  further,  the  "  Kaupt- 
stiick  des  ewigen  und  nuucu  Testaments,  '  etc.,  1522.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  29  sqq. 
(the  last-named  coniainmg  inferences  from  the  words  of  institution  and  a  con- 
ception of  the  sacrament  as  a  seal  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  passages  cited 
above.     Vol.  I.,  p.  347). 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  77 

of  Scripture  and  from  the  harmony  of  the  faith — arguments  in 
which  the  later  opponents  of  Luther  who  rejected  his  exegesis 
upon  this  subject  afterward  found  support,  but  which  he  now 
endeavored  to  refute  in  essentially  the  same  way  as  that  which 
he  afterwards  pursued. 

Carlstadt  followed  Honius  in  quoting  the  declaration  in  Matt. 
xxiv.  23.  To  this  Luther  replied,  that  the  words  :  "  Here  or 
there  is  Christ  "  refer  not  to  Christ's  body  and  blood,  but  to  the 
entire  Christ,  that  is,  to  His  Kingdom,  which,  according  to  Lk. 
xvii.  20,  does  not  come  with  outward  demonstrations,  and  does 
not  consist  of  outward  things,  places  or  times,  but  is  within  us. 
From  this  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  Christ  is  nowhere,  but 
rather  that  He  is  everywhere  and  fills  all  things  (Eph.  i.  23). 
And  in  this.  His  presence.  He  is  bound  to  no  single  place,  no 
single  person.  This,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in 
question,  i.  e.,  that  outward,  bodily  places  and  things  dare  not 
(as  is  done  under  the  Papacy)  be  specially  exalted  above  others 
and  made  necessary  to  salvation.  With  this  principle,  however, 
the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  does  not,  he  claims, 
conflict;  since  it  is  not  a  visible  presence  in  external  places,  but 
a  hidden  presence  in  the  sacrament,  that  is  taught.  Nor  is  it 
held  that  the  body  must  be  at  particular  places ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  is  to  be  with  the  bread  and  wine,  free  at  all  places  and 
for  all  times  and  persons,  just  like  baptism  and  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel. 

Luther  had  already  also  to  deal  particularly  with  the  two  argu- 
ments which  claimed  his  attention  afterwards  in  his  principal 
treatise  against  Zwingli,  in  the  year  1527. 

Thus,  Carlstadt  already  argued  that  Jesus  Himself  declares,  in 
John  vi.  63,  that  His  flesh  profifeth  nothing.  Luther  inquires  of 
what  profit  then,  according  to  this  argiunent,  that  flesh  of  Christ 
could  have  been,  to  which  the  Lord  is  said  to  have  pointed  when 
he  said  '■'■  tovto.''^  He  demands,  too,  that  a  discrimination  be 
made  between y^^j-A  and  Chrisfs  flesh.  The  saying  in  John  vi.  63 
is  not  to  be  referred  to  the  flesh  of  Christ  at  all,  but  is  to  be 
interpreted  in  connection  with  the  following  declaration,  /.  e., 
that  the  words  of  Christ  are  spirit  and  life.  By  the  flesh,  which 
profiteth  nothing,  Christ  accordingly  means  a  carnal  understand- 
ing of  these,  His  divine  words.  "  Flesh  "  here,  as  elsewhere  in 
Scripture,  denotes  the  carnal  disposition,  will,  understanding  and 


75  THE    THEOLOGV    OF    LUTHER. 

fancy.'  Luther  then  insists  that  a  proper  discrimination  be  made 
between  the  benefit  i^Nntzesein)  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  itself 
and  its  benefit  to  us.  He  never  said,  he  asserts,  that  it  is  of 
benefit  to  any  one  who  does  not  receive  it  in  faith  through  the 
words  of  God  which  it  contains.  In  itself,  however,  the  body  of 
Christ  is  always  beneficial  and  profitable,  just  as  God's  Word  is 
always  profitable,  although  it  is  to  the  wicked  a  savor  of  death 
unto  death,  and  as  the  sun  is  always  shining,  although  it  cannot 
be  seen  by  the  blind. 

A  further  argiunent  (the  second  above  referred  to)  of  the 
"  Madam  Hulda  "  was,  that  Christ  would  have  to  leave  His  place 
in  heaven  in  order  to  enter  into  the  bread,  or,  aa  Luther  found 
the  objection  expressed  in  a  tone  of  rude  mockery  by  Carlstadt : 
Christ  would  have  to  spring  up  at  once  {ai/fspringen)  whenever 
summoned  by  the  putrid  breath  of  a  drunken  priest  —  would 
have  to  allow  Himself  to  be  torn  away  and  banished  from  heaven. 
In  response,  Luther  refuses  to  hear  anything  of  an  interpretation 
of  Christian  belief  according  to  which  Christ  "  ascends  and 
descends."  He  cites  again  the  passage  previously  quoted,  Eph. 
i.  23,  declaring  that  Carlstadt  does  not  understand  the  kingdom 
of  Christ,  how  Christ  is  in  all  places  and,  according  to  this  text, 
fills  all  things.  He  pressed  the  case  still  farther,  declaring  that 
this  same  spirit  would  then  also  have  to  contend  that  the  Son  of 
God,  when  He  was  in  his  mother's  womb,  had  been  compelled 
to  forsake  heaven — just  as  it  would  certainly,  in  course  of  time, 
begin  to  make  sport  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  He  thus  places 
side  by  side  the  omnipresence  of  the  exalted  Christ  (Eph.  i. 
23),  which  was  held  to  involve  the  possibility  of  His  presence 
also  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  aa  existence  in  heaven,  which  must 
be  attributed  to  the  God-man  as  continuing  without  interruption 
even  during  the  incidents  attending  the  beginning  of  His  incar- 
nation. Earlier  writing?,  of  Luther  afford  us  no  more  definite 
view  of  the   doctrine  of  Christ  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  this 

'  In  the  sermon  of  the  Church  Postils,  Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  94,  Luther  applied  the 
saying  of  Jesus,  not  to  the  carnal  nature  of  the  disciples,  but  to  the  flesh  itself 
in  distinction  from  a  flesh  with  which  the  divine  Word  stands  connected. 
Although  the  disciples  did  not  pay  due  regard  to  the  words  of  Christ  (looking 
only  upon  His  flesh  as  such).  He  has,  by  the  words  spoken  in  regard  to  His 
flesh,  made  this  a  real  food.  The  theory  of  the  sacrament,  Word  and  sign,  is 
precisely  the  same  also  in  this  sermon  as  in  the  outline  just  given  above. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  79 

present  discussion,  nor  of  the  relation  of  the  divine  to  the  human 
in  His  person.'  We  shall  presently  find  this  doctrine  keenly 
developed  in  its  relation  to  the  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In 
the  treatise  against  the  Heavenly  Prophets,  no  further  attention  is 
paid  to  it.  Luther  does  not  hesitate  to  appeal,  in  support  of  the 
real  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  not  only 
to  His  incarnation,  but  also  to  the  experiences  of  Stephen  (Acts 
vii.  56)  and  Paul  (Acts  ix.  4),  although  there  is  in  the  former 
cases  only  a  seeing  (^Gesehenwet den) ,  and  in  the  latter  case,  only 
a  hearing  (^Gehorhuerden) ,  of  Him  who  dwells  in  heaven. 

That  which  we  have  thus  far  presented  from  the  tract  against 
the  Heavenly  Prophets  was  designed  by  its  author  not  so  much 
to  bring  into  full  view  his  own  apprehension  of  the  way  in 
which  the  body  and  blood  are  present,  as  to  refute  the  arguments 
advanced  against  the  real  presence.  This  was,  in  the  main,  the 
immediate  purpose  of  the  publication  in  question.  Nevertheless, 
the  point  last  mentioned,  /.  e.,  the  question  as  to  the  relation  of 
this  presence  to  the  existence  of  Christ  in  heaven,  has  brought  to 
our  attention  for  the  first  time  a  very  important  positive  item  in 
the  doctrine  of  Luther.  And  a  new  tendency  now  becomes 
manifest  in  the  development  of  Luther's  conception  of  the  sub- 
ject, especially  in  connection  with  the  very  important  question  as 
to  the  irtation  of  the  body  and  blood  to  the  visible  elements  which 
is  implied  in  the  words  of  institution. 

The  "  sophistry  and  keen  wit  of  Carlstadt  and  his  horde  " 
demanded  to  know  how  Christ  could  say  of  the  bread,  "  This  is 
my  body."  Luther  had  been  accustomed  to  illustrate  here  by 
the  glowing  iron  and  the  coincidence  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 
He  now  replies  to  these  objectors,  that  they  should  either  give 
God  the  glory,  and  be  content  simply  to  receive  His  Word ;  or, 
if  they  wanted  to  be  so  very  wise,  they  should  at  least  frame  their 
arguments  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  composition  and  the 
natural  modes  of  speech.  He  then  immediately  presents  to  them 
again  the  two  illustrations  above  cited.  According  to  the  natural 
mode  of  speech,  we  say  of  a  piece  of  glowing  iron  :  This  is  fire. 
Similarly,  we  say  of  the  nian,  Christ :  This  (man)  is  God ;  and 
again  :  God  is  man.  He  then  proceeds  to  say  that,  if  this  mode 
of  speech  does  not  please  them,  they  might  then  avail  themselves 

1  Cf.  Bk.  IV. 


8o  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

of  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  make  frequent  use  of  the  figure 
known  as  Synecdoche,  mentioning  the  whole  of  an  object  when 
they  mean  to  designate  only  a  part.  Thus,  for  example,  Moses 
calls  the  children  of  Israel  God's  peculiar  people,  and  Paul  calls 
the  Galatians  and  Corinthians  the  congregation  of  God,  although, 
in  either  case,  but  the  minority  really  belonged  to  God,  or  were 
His  true  children.'  Thus,  also,  these  very  wise  people  might  have 
interpreted  the  whole  object  of  which  Christ  speaks,  /.  e,,  the  bread 
and  the  body,  as  indicating  the  body  alone ;  understanding  Him 
as  saying,  "  This  is  my  body,"  without  ijiaking  any  mention  of 
the  bread.  The  bread  is,  indeed,  also  present,  but,  inasmuch  as 
everything  depends  upon  the  body.  He  speaks  as  though  there 
were  nothing  there  but  the  body.  In  a  similar  way,  a  mother 
might  point  to  the  cradle  in  which  her  child  is  lying,  and  say  : 
This  is  my  child. 

This  explanation,  based  upon  a  supposed  synecdoche,  Luther 
employs  also  in  his  discussions  with  Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius, 
in  order  to  justify  the  relation  between  the  subject  and  the  predi- 
cate in  the  words  of  institution.  The  subject  expressed  in  rov-o 
is,  according  to  this  view,  the  bread  and  the  body  together, 
regarded  as  one  whole :  but  when  Christ  in  the  rof-o  referred  to 
this  whole,  he  yet  actually  meant  only  the  one  invisible  part  of 
the  whole.  This  mode  of  explanation  marks,  beyond  question, 
an  advance  in  the  method  by  which  Luther  sought  to  make  the 
meaning  of  these  words  clear  to  himself  and  others.  The  argu- 
ment touches  also  the  essential  features  of  the  question  at  large, 
inasmuch  as,  under  this  conception  of  the  thought  embodied,  the 
bread  and  the  body,  whilst  associated,  are  yet  at  the  same  time 
kept  more  distinctly  apart  than  was  the  case  in  the  figure  of  the 
glowing  iron.  Yet  we  must  bear  in  mind,  also,  that  Luther,  even 
when  employing  the  latter  figure,  yet  never  thought  of  it  in  such 
a  way  as  to  involve  the  idea,  that  the  iron  in  becoming  glowing 
changed  its  own  properties  or  had  experienced  any  transforma- 
tion. He,  on  the  contrary,  conceives  of  the  fire  as  a  separate 
substance,  which  is  present  together  with  the  substance  of  the 
iron.  Each  of  these  substances  retains  also,  as  he  says,  "  its 
nature  for  itself,"  although  they  "are  in  one  another  and  like  one 

'  As  to  ibe  use  which  the  Scriptures  make  of  Synecdoche,  cf.  also  already 
Luther's  Enarrat.  in  Epist.  et  Evang.,  Jena,  ii,  342  sq.  ("Synecdoche  est, 
quando  totum  pro  parte  et  e  diverse  accipitur  ") ;  also  Jena,  ii,  409  b,  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  8 1 

thing."  Nor  does  he,  when  illustrating  the  association  {Ziisatii- 
mcnseiii)  of  the  bread  and  the  body  by  the  fact  that  the  iron  and 
fire,  or  the  divine  and  human  natures  of  Christ,  are  "  in  one 
another  as  one  thing,"  mean  to  say  that  the  precise  way  and 
mode  of  becoming  thus  "one  thing"  is  in  all  these  instances  the 
same.  He  does  not,  therefore,  now  wish  to  be  understood  as 
having  in  this  comparison,  nor  in  the  suggestion  of  a  synecdoche, 
set  up  any  different  conception  of  the  actual  relation  between 
the  bread  and  the  body,  but  only  a  different  mode  of  expressing 
that  relation.  In  this  spirit  he  presents  them  side  by  side  to  the 
consideration  of  his  pretentious  opponents.  He  afterwards 
plainly  says,  further,  that  the  simile  of  the  glowing  iron  itself  may 
be  regarded  as  a  form  of  synecdoche. 

But  from  the  entire  detailed  discussion  of  the  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  under  the  bread  and  wine  which  we  thus  find  in 
the  publication  against  the  Heavenly  Prophets  we  are  now 
brought  back,  as  in  the  deliverances  of  Luther  against  the  Bohe- 
mian Brethren,  to  the  significance  which  is  claimed  for  the  Word 
itself  in  connection  with  the  body  present  in  the  bread.  Here 
also,  we  are  unable  now  to  discover  any  modification  in  the 
Reformer's  conception  of  the  subject. 

We  have  observed  how  emphatically  Luther  has  designated  as 
divine  and  almighty  the  words  which  Christ  commanded  to  be 
spoken  at  the  celebration  of  the  sacrament.  By  virtue  of  fhesf, 
and  not  by  virtue  of  any  human  "  blowing  and  hissing,"  the  body 
of  Christ  is  present  in  the  sacrament.  Even  before  this  time, 
Luther  had  not  only  said  of  these  words,  that  we  in  (the  exercise 
of)  faith  upon  them  receive  the  forgiveness  which  is  offered  in 
them,  but  he  had  never  sought  the  grounds  upon  which  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body  was  actually,  according  to  the  will  of  God,  mani- 
fested anywhere  but  in  the  very  words  of  the  consecration,  or 
institution,  themselves. 

Still  further,  we  now  find  Luther  yet  maintaining  also  that  by 
these  very  words,  in  so  far  as  faith  is  awakened  by  them  and  clings 
to  them,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  itself  imparted  to  us.  This  is 
evident  especially  in  the  propositions  upon  the  "  dispensing " 
{Austheilitng)  of  forgiveness,  which  immediately  succeed  the 
above  utterance  upon  the  omnipotence  of  the  words,  and  which 
we  have  already  cited  in  that  connection.  Thus  he  here — in 
precisely  the  same  spirit  as  upon  previous  occasions — places  the 
6 


82  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LU'JHEK. 

words  of  the  sacrament  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  in  gen- 
eral together,  as  "  the  Word,  which  dispenses  to  me  such  forgive- 
ness." He  even,  further,  associates  this  New  Testament  Word 
with  those  divine  words  of  grace  through  which,  from  the  very 
foundation  of  the  world,  such  dispensations  of  grace  had  been 
likewise  mediated.  He  adds  now  the  assertion  that,  if  the  body 
and  the  blood  were  not  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  yet  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  would  be  there  by  virtue  of  this  same  Word 
("  my  body  giveji  for  you  "). 

But  what  especial  blessing,  promotive  of  their  eternal  happiness 
and  their  assurance  of  salvation,  is,  according  to  this,  in  addition 
to  the  Word  in  so  far  as  the  latter  dispenses  this  forgiveness  to 
faith,  offered  to  believing  participants  through  the  body  of  Christ, 
which  is  present  by  virtue  of  the  Word?  Even  the  treatise 
against  Carlstadt  furnishes  us  no  other  answer  than  that  it  is  an 
especially  lofty  pledge  attached  to  the  bare  words,  as  special 
security  for  the  bestowal  of  the  forgiveness  therein  granted.' 

Turning,  finally,  to  the  word  '■'■remembrance''''  (^Geddchtniss), 
in  which  Carlstadt  placed  the  essential  feature  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  we  shall  find  that  Luther  also,  while  intoning  above  all 
else  the  divine  gift  in  the  sacrament,  at  the  same  time  recognizes 
the  act  of  remembrance,  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  the 
Lord  :  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  In  presenting,  how- 
ever, his  own  conception  of  the  nature  and  place  of  this  feature 
in  the  ordinance,  he  represents  it  as  an  "  external  remembrance," 
since  in  the  very  reception  of  the  sacrament  we  proclaim  Christ's 
death,  confess  him,  and  preach  the  Gospel.  Nor  is  such  a 
remembrance  to  be  thought  of  as  justifying,  but  those  who  desire 
thus  to  proclaim  and  preach  must  be  (in  faith  and  the  Word) 
justified  beforehand. 

Such  are,  then,  the  doctrines  touching  the  Lord's  Supper  with 
which  Luther  met  Carlstadt  and  his  associates  in  the  pamphlet 
issued  in  the  beginning  of  the  year  1525.  We  have  observed  to 
what  weighty  utterances  touching  the  Person  of  Christ  he  had 
then  already  been  led  by  the  course  of  the  controversy.  By 
Easter  of  the  same  year,  we  find  him  -  also  preaching  against  the 
Fanatics,  expressly  upon  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  351 ;  supra,  p.  70. 

"Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  18  sqq. ;  xxv,  91  sqq.  Cf.  also  Ibid.,  vii,  186,  and  further, 
under  the  Person  of  Christ,  in  Bk.  IV. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  83 

The  point  of  the  discussion  was  for  him  here  the  work  of  salva- 
tion itself,  and  precisely  how  this  work  depended  upon  the  unity 
of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ,  i.  <?.,  the  very  point  for 
which  we  shall  afterwards  find  him  contending,  especially  in  his 
Grosses  Bekenntniss  vom  Abendmahl,  as  against  Zwingli  and  his 
Allmosis.  He  now  already  rejects  the  view  of  his  antagonists  as 
Nestorian,  As  he  was  then  engaged  in  expounding  the  Book  of 
Exodus  from  the  pulpit,  the  narrative  of  the  Burning  Bush  and 
the  prophecy  concerning  the  Seed  of  Abraham  furnished  him 
occasion  to  discuss  the  subject.  In  the  speaking  of  God  from 
the  midst  of  the  bush,  he  sees  a  picture  of  the  divine  nature  of 
Christ  as  having  entered  into  the  human,  which  may  be  con- 
ceived as  a  frail  green  bush.  Both  natures,  he  says,  must  now 
remain  together  in  one  person,  as  in  man  body  and  soul  are  one 
person.  But  God  became  man  in  order  to  suffer  and  die,  and 
this  suffering  is  indicated  by  the  burning  of  the  bush.  He  is  a 
spirit,  and  as  such  incapable  of  suffering ;  it  was  necessary  there- 
fore for  Him  to  become  man,  in  order  to  suffer.  And  God  now 
suffers  here  in  this  person  of  Christ,  and  does  not  remain  outside 
of  it,  as  is  taught  by  some  fanatics,  who  hold  that  the  humanity 
of  Christ  alone  suffered  and  redeemed  us.  It  is  the  entire  Christ 
— the  God  who  became  man — who  died  and  rose  again, — not,  it 
is  true,  according  to  His  divinity,  since  the  divine  nature  cannot 
suffer;  but  according  to  the  humanity  which  He  assumed.  It 
would  have  been  a  poor  redemption  indeed,  if  only  the  man 
Christ  had  been  crucified,  and  not  at  the  same  time  God,  or  the 
Son  of  God,  united  in  this  one  person.  We,  therefore,  glorify 
and  worship  not  only  the  bare  humanity  in  Christ,  but  God  and 
man  at  once,  as  the  true  Creator  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth, 
united  in  one  person, — as  is  also  confessed  by  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  against  Nestorius,  and  by  John  Damascenus.  We  speak 
of  God  the  Incarnate,  not  in  the  abstract  nor  in  the  absolute, 
but  in  the  concrete,  declaring  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  of 
Mary,  is  the  Creator,  and  has  by  His  sufferings  brought  immor- 
tality to  light,  etc.  Against  this,  the  devil  is  now  trying  to  intro- 
duce again  the  old  Nestorian  heresy.  In  these  passages,  Luther 
makes  no  application  of  his  Christology  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


84  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

d.  Support  of  Ecclesiastical  Order,  especially  of  a  Regular  Call  to 
the  Ministry,  against  Carlstadt  and  Other  Fanatics. 

UNIVERSAL  PRIESTHOOD ABUSE  OF  DOCTRINE  BY    ZWICKAU  PROPHETS 

CALL    TO   MINISTRY LAY    ACTIVITY INTRUSIONS    BY    ANABAP- 
TISTS  RESISTANCE  OF   LEGAL  AUTHORITY. 

With  respect  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  shall  have  to  follow  the 
course  of  development  in  Luther's  doctrine  still  further  in  a 
special  section.  Various  points  of  this  doctrine  are  first  brought 
into  prominence  by  him  in  his  controversy  with  Zwingli  and 
Oecolampadius,  or,  at  least,  then  placed  in  a  new  light  and  pre- 
sented in  a  fuller  exposition. 

We  find,  on  the  contrary,  the  principles  of  Luther  upon  Ecclesi- 
astical Order,  the  call  to  the  ministry,  etc.,  as  he  publicly  advo- 
cated them  after  his  return  from  the  Wartburg,  already  announced, 
in  all  their  essential  features,  in  his  first  controversial  writings 
against  the  "  Fanatical  Spirits."  Whatever  later  writings  furnish 
upon  these  subjects  may  therefore  be  fittingly  treated  in  the 
present  section. 

A  violent  revolution  in  the  entire  conception  of  ecclesiastical 
activities,  ecclesiastical  ofifices,  and  ecclesiasticism  in  general 
was  effected  by  the  reformatory  idea  of  the  Universal  Priesthood 
in  the  minds  of  all  who  accepted  that  doctrine.  Such  not  only 
felt  their  souls  freed  from  the  entire  curse  and  yoke  of  human 
mediatorship,  which  had  in  the  separate  "  spiritual  order " 
intruded  itself  between  them  and  their  God  and  Saviour ;  they 
not  only,  in  so  far  as  they  exercised  real  faith,  knew  themselves 
to  be  equally  near  to  the  great  Head  in  heaven,  and  equally 
entitled  to  share  the  promise  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  but 
they  had  all  likewise  received  the  lofty  and  holy  authority  to 
exercise  priestly  functions  among  their  fellow-christians  and  fellow- 
men  as  members  who,  just  because  having  equal  share  in  the 
body  and  Head,  ought  to  promote  one  another's  mutual  well- 
being,  and  to  allow  the  vital  energy  pulsating  within  them  to  flow 
out  upon  one  another.  And  with  this  consciousness  of  authority 
must  have  been  awakened  also,  in  vigorous  and  joyous  energy, 
the  consciousness  and  impulse  of  a  common  duty  and  a  common 
Christian  caUing. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  8$ 

Side  by  side  with  this  great  exaltation  of  the  individual  believer, 
stood  however,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the  beginning,  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Luther  the  caution,  that  the  inference  must  not  be  drawn 
that,  just  because  every  one  is  equally  consecrated  to  be  a  priest 
and  bishop,  every  one  may  therefore  presume  to  exercise  that 
office  in  the  congregation.  Offices  in  the  Church,  he  held,  must 
be  conferred  by  the  fellowmembers,  or  the  congregation.  Room 
was,  however,  left  here  for  many  of  the  weightiest  questions. 
In  how  far,  in  general,  should  the  public  priestly  function  exer- 
cised within  the  congregation,  /.  e.,  that  of  teaching,  be  made 
fixedly  and  permanently  the  exclusive  calling  of  a  particular  indi- 
vidual among  so  many?  How  should  the  election  and  commis- 
sioning by  the  congregation  be  conducted?  What  aggregation 
of  believers  should  be  acknowledged  as  properly  the  Church? 
How  should  the  congregation,  as  such,  be  outwardly  represented? 
Especially,  what  may  and  should  be  dons,  if  an  individual  believer 
should  be  utterly  unable  to  find  any  true  evangelical  congregation? 

Before  Luther  had  attempted  to  give  a  definite  answer  to  these 
questions,  doubtless  before  he  had  even  formed  clearly  and 
sharply  his  own  judgment  in  regard  to  all  the  points  which  might 
be  raised,  the  so-called  Prophets,  who  refused  to  hear  anything 
at  all  of  any  such  external  call,  had  begun  their  operations  in 
Wittenberg.  With  their  assault  upon  the  external  ecclesiastical 
order  he  saw  immediately  connected  in  these  Fanatics,  and  also 
in  Carlstadt  and  the  later  Anabaptists,  a  spirit  of  contempt  for 
the  objective,  divinely-appointed  means  of  grace  themselves. 
Under  the  stress  of  this  entire  and  internally  consistent  movement, 
he  now  framed  and  completed  his  own  doctrine  upon  the  subject. 

In  encountering  the  Zwickau  Prophets,  he  at  once  announced 
his  general  theory  of  the  Call  to  the  Ministry,^  in  entire  harmony 
with  his  previous  deliverances,  as  follows  :  Whoever  desires  to 
exercise  the  office  of  the  public  ministry  must  show  that  he  has 
been  sent  by  God  ;  but  God  has  never  sent  any  one  who  had  not 
been  either  called  by  men  or  approved  of  God  Himself  by  mira- 
cles. In  accordance  with  these  principles,  therefore,  even  the 
New  Prophets  must  prove  their  calling. 

Luther  then,  in  a  communication  addressed  in  Latin  to  the 
"Council   and   People  of  Prague"   in   1523,^  presented  a  new 

^  Briefe,  ii,  125.  *  Jena,  ii,  576  b  sqq. 


86  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

exposition  of  his  principles  touching  the  universal  priesthood, 
especially  the  teaching  authority  which  it  involves,  as  also  the 
competency  of  a  congregation  to  establish  such  an  office  in  its 
midst.  In  connection  with  this,  we  have  also  the  German  publi- 
cation :  "Thai  a  Christian  Assembly,  or  Congregation,  has  the 
Right  and  Authority  to  yndge  all  Doctrines,  to  Call  Teachers,'''  ' 
etc. 

The  fundamental  idea  here  is  again  that  contained  in  the 
thesis  :  A  priest  is  not  the  same  as  a  presbyter  or  minister  {Sacer- 
dotem  non  esse  quod  presbyterum  vel  ministrujn)  :  the  former  is 
born,  the  latter  made.  The  present  document,  therefore,  at  once 
lays  down  this  principle,  and  then  proceeds  to  present,  in  some 
respects  more  fully  than  any  of  the  earlier  writings  of  Luther,  the 
functions  of  the  born  priesthood,  embracing  them  under  seven 
heads,  as  follows:  i.  The  proclamation  of  the  Word.  2.  Bap- 
tism, which  even  women  are  allowed  to  administer  in  cases  of 
necessity.  3.  The  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
command  of  Christ,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,"  is  ad- 
dressed to  all.  Moreover,  the  two  offices  first  named  are  greater 
matters  than  the  consecration  of  bread  and  wine,  and  the  less 
will  surely  not  be  prohibited  to  him  to  whom  the  greater  is  com- 
mitted. 4.  The  binding  and  loosing  of  sin,  the  authority  for 
which  is,  according  to  Matt,  xviii.,  committed  to  the  entire  con- 
gregation, and  which  is  nothing  more  than  the  proclamation  and 
application  of  the  Gospel.  5.  The  rendering  of  sacrifice,  accord- 
ing to  Rom.  xii.  i  and  i  Pet.  ii.  5,  /'.  c.,  the  crucifixion  of  one's 
own  flesh  and  the  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving.  6. 
Priestly  intercession  for  others  before  God  in  prayer.  7.  Inde- 
pendent judgment  of  dogmas  in  the  light  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

In  regard  particularly  to  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  or  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  especial  attention  should  be  given  to 
the  use  made  of  the  passage,  i  Cor.  xiv.  26  sqq.,  in  connection 
with  which  we  refer  back  also  to  the  tract,  Vojn  Missbrauch  der 
Mcsse.  Luther  had  there  declared  that,  although  it  is  not  allow- 
able for  many  to  preach  at  once  simply  because  all  have  authority 
to  preach,  and  although,  according  to  i  Cor.  xiv.  40,  all  things 
must  be  done  decently  and  in  order,  yet  these  restrictions  do  not 
annul  the  equal  share  of  all  in  the  office  itself.     He  interpreted 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  140  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  87 

the  counsel  of  the  apostle,  that  two  or  three  should  speak  with 
tongues  and  two  or  three  arise  to  prophesy,  as  indicating  that 
every  one  who  has  the  special  gift  required  should  be  allowed 
to  speak  before  the  congregation,  and  that  whoever  is  "  better 
fitted  than  others  "  {vor  Andcrn  geschickf)  may  undertake  to  do 
so.  Women  are  prohibited  by  the  apostle,  simply  because  speak- 
ing belongs  to,  and  much  better  becomes,  a  man,  and  he  is  better 
fitted  for  it.'  In  the  same  spirit  he  now,  in  his  Address  to  the 
Council  and  People  of  Prague,  quotes,  in  support  of  the  universal 
authority  for  the  proclamation  of  the  Word,  the  statements  of 
Paul  in  I  Cor.  xiv.  26,  31  :  "  Every  one  of  you  hath  a  psalm," 
etc. ;  "  Ye  may  all  prophesy  one  by  one,"  etc.,  and  then  asks  : 
"  Who  is  '  every  one'  ?  Who  are  '  all'  ?  Does  he  by  these  uni- 
versal terms  mean  only  the  shaved  fellows?"  Yet  more  distinctly 
he  says,  in  the  subsequent  German  document :  "  So  then  St.  Paul 
here  commands  every  one  in  the  assembly  of  Christians  to  arise 
when  it  is  necessary,  even  without  being  called  upon,  and  by  this 
divine  word  he  calls  him  to  the  office,  and  commands  the  others 
to  retire,  and  deposes  them  by  the  authority  of  these  words,"  etc. 
"  Christ  gives  authority  to  every  Christian  to  teach  among  his 
fellow-christians  wheii  it  is  necessary,'"'  etc.- 

Luther  here  endeavors  also  to  base  even  the  authority  of  the 
congregation,  as  such,  to  call  its  own  ministers  upon  these  princi- 
ples touching  the  universal  priesthood.  If,  says  he,  every  believer 
has  this  authority,  it  certainly  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  con- 
gregation, having  received  the  Gospel,  may  and  ought  to  select 
from  its  number  the  one  who  shall  teach  the  Word  in  its  stead. 
And,  he  repeats,  just  because  these  things  are  all  common  to  all 
believers,  no  one  dare  press  forward  in  his  own  authority  and  vio- 
lently appropriate  to  himself  that  which  is  the  common  property 
of  all.  "  It  is  one  thing  to  exercise  [exsequi)  this  right  habitually 
in  public,  and  another  thing  to  employ  it  in  case  of  necessity.  To 
exercise  it  habitually  in  public  is  not  permitted  except  with  the 
consent  of  the  whole  body,  or  the  Church ;  in  case  of  necessity,  l_^' 
whoever  wishes  to  do  so  may  employ  it."  He,  accordingly, 
advises  the  Bohemians  to  appoint  their  own  ministers.  These 
should  be  selected  from  the  bosom  of  the  congregation  itself,  com- 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  47  ?qq.     Jena,  ii,  470  b  sqq. 
2Jena,  ii,  581  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  148. 


88  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

mended  to  the  whole  body  {^universitati),  and  confirmed  in  their 
office  with  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Nor  must  we 
overlook  the  significant  fact,  that  this  communication  of  Luther 
is  itself  addressed  primarily  to  the  Council  of  Prague.  Luther 
evidently  recognizes  in  that  body  the  proper  representatives 
{Haiipter)  of  the  congregation.  No  other  meaning  can  be 
attached  to  the  passages  in  which  he  discriminates  the  persons 
here  directly  addressed  from  the  general  body  (^Gesainmiheit). 
He  then  continues,  offering  the  still  more  definite  counsel :  Aftei 
all  whose  hearts  God  has  moved  to  become  like-minded  with 
yourselves  have  voluntarily  assembled,  proceed  in  God's  name, 
and  elect  those  whom  you  may  desire  and  who  appear  fitted  for 
the  office  :  then,  the  hands  of  those  who  have  been  ?nost  influential 
among  you  being  laid  upon  them,  confirm  them  (in  the  office) 
and  commend  them  to  the  people  and  to  the  congregation,  or 
general  body.  In  a  case  in  which  evangelical  faith  and  good- 
will might  be  presupposed  upon  the  part  of  the  secular  officials, 
he  advises  the  congregation  to  proceed  in  the  same  way.'  The 
German  document  goes  still  further.  Whilst  there  demanding 
that  the  bishops,  even  when  faithful  and  evangelical,  shall  appoint 
no  preachers  "  without  the  will,  election  and  call  of  the  congre- 
gation," he  makes  an  exception  for  the  case  when  necessity  com- 
pels, in  order  that  souls  may  not  perish  for  want  of  the  divine 
Word.  In  such  a  case,  he  declares,  any  one  may  secure  a 
preacher,  whether  by  pleading  for  one  or  through  the  power  of 
the  secular  government ;  or  ought  himself,  if  he  is  able,  to  arise 
and  teach,  since  necessity  knows  no  law — just  as  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  one  to  run  to  a  conflagration  in  the  town  without  waiting  to 
be  implored  to  come.  Accordingly,  also,  where  there  is  no 
preaching  of  the  Word,  and  the  bishops  refuse  to  do  their  duty, 
a  preacher  may  be  appointed  for  the  individuals  who  desire  to 
hear  the  Word,  either  by  the  secular  authorities  or  even  "  by 
pleading  "  (/.  e.,  doubtless,  by  imploring  one  to  come  to  them. 
Cf.  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  last  sentence).  Moreover,  the 
individual  believer  may  himself  assume  the  ministry  of  the  Word 
in  order  to  deliver  others  from  distress.'''  Luther  still  further 
suggests  also  to  the  Bohemians  that,  after  many  cities  shall  have 
been  supplied  with  bishops  and  preachers  by  the  method  pro- 

'  Jena,  ii,  584-586.  '  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  149. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  89 

posed,  the  latter  might  then  be  permitted  to  elect  visitors,  or 
superintendents,  from  their  own  number,  until  Bohemia  should 
again  secure  3,  regular  and  evangelical  archiepiscopate. 

But  how  can  the  application  of  the  texts  in  i.  Cor.  xiv.  made 
in  the  passage  above  cited  be  reconciled  with  what  is  here  said 
of  the  calling  and  legitimizing  of  individuals  by  the  congrega- 
tions? We  find  in  Luther  here  no  clear  and  distinct  declaration 
as  to  how  far  it  is  actually  allowable,  in  congregations  already 
having  an  evangelical  pastor  or  "  bishop,"  for  others,  not  formally 
inducted  into  office,  to  arise  before  the  congregation  with  their 
"  prophesying  "  (which  Luther  understands  to  mean  simply  the 
proclamation  of  the  Word) .  According  to  the  German  docu- 
ment, it  would  rather  appear  that  the  individual  believer  should 
employ  his  authority  and  gifts  only  in  the  case  of  necessity,  when 
he  shall  fail  to  find  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  upon  the  lips  of  the 
regularly-appointed  minister.  By  the  "  retiring  "  of  the  latter, 
referred  to  in  the  passage  quoted  above,  Luther  understands 
therefore  a  deposition.  But  when  such  cases  are  actually  pre- 
sented— especially  in  places  where  the  Papacy  had  entirely 
excluded  the  proclamation  of  evangelical  truth — Luther  insists 
most  vigorously  upon  this  right  and  duty  of  every  individual 
believer,  appealiiig  to  the  example  of  Stephen  (Acts  vi.)  and 
Philip  (Acts  viii.),  who,  ordained  merely  to  the  diaconate,  yet 
preached  the  Gospel  by  virtue  of  the  general  right  of  all  believers, 
without  being  called  by  any  one,  wherever  they  found  a  door 
open  to  them  and  the  people,  ignorant  and  without  the  Word, 
standing  in  need  of  their  ministry.  He  points  also  epecially  to 
Apollos  (Acts  xviii.  25  sq.),  who  taught  at  Ephesus  without  any 
call  or  ordination,  alone  upon  the  basis  of  the  words  spoken  for 
all  in  I  Cor.  xiv.  31.  and  1  Pet,  ii.  9.  When  he,  in  this  connec- 
tion, speaks  of  "  erring  heathen  and  unchristians  "  ( Unchristen) 
to  whom  we  are  thus  under  obligations  to  preach,  he  certainly 
means  by  the  last,  as  the  entire  context  proves,  particularly  those 
poor  souls  under  the  dominion  of  the  Papacy  who  yet  know  really 
nothing  of  Christian  salvation.  Of  such  cases  of  necessity  and 
distress,  he  says  :  "  Thus  (as  Apollos)  every  Christian  is  bound 
to  act,  when  he  sees  that  there  is  need  for  the  Word  and  is  capa- 
ble (of  giving  it),  although  the  general  body  {universitas)  do  not 
call  him "  ;  and  again :  "  A  Christian,  impelled  by  brotherly 
love,  regards  the  distress  of  poor  souls,  and  does  not  wait  to  see 


90  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

whether  instructions,  or  letters  of  authority,  may  be  given  to  him 
by  princes  or  bishops,  since  necessity  breaks  all  laws.  Love  is  in 
duty  bound  to  help  where  there  is  no  one  else  to  do  so.V 

Such  was  the  teaching  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the  universal 
priesthood,  while  the  latter  doctrine  was  already  being  perverted 
by  others  to  the  grossest  abuse.  He  was  greatly  concerned 
both  to  jireserve  to  congregations,  on  the  one  hand,  by  means 
of  this  doctrine,  the  possiblility  of  securing  evangelical  preaching 
and  pastors,  and,  on  the  other,  to  keep  the  territory  already  won 
for  the  Gospel  free  from  the  perversions  referred  to.  His  sin- 
cerity in  maintaining  the  first  position  was  manifest,  for  example, 
in  the  case  of  the  Peasants,  in  whose  behalf  he  asserted  the 
principle,  that  believers  who  are  hungering  for  the  Word  are 
authorized  to  appoint  a  preacher  for  themselves.  They  had,  in 
their  Twe/ve  Articles,  first  of  all  demanded  that  an  entire  congre- 
gation should  have  the  authority  to  elect  or  depose  a  pastor  (A.  D. 
1525).  Though  most  severely  calling  the  insurgent  peasants  to 
order,  he  yet  candidly  says  of  this  article,  that  it  is  right,  if  it  be 
only  carried  out  also  in  a  Christian  way.  If  the  property  of  the 
parish  has  come  from  the  secular  authorities,  the  congregation 
cannot  appropriate  it  for  the  use  of  the  preacher  whom  they 
themselves  have  elected.  They  should,  much  rather,  first  appeal 
to  the  authorities  to  send  them  a  pastor,  and  if  their  request  be 
refused,  then  elect  one  for  themselves,  and  support  him  also  with 
their  own  means.^ 

'  Jena,  ii,  588  b  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  146  sq.  In  the  first  pnrt  of  the  Church 
Postils,  issued  from  the  Wartburg  (Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  219  sq.),  Luther  had  pressed 
the  example  of  Stephen  still  further.  He  there  says:  "This  man  gives 
authority  by  his  example  to  every  one  to  preach  wherever  people  will  listen  to 
him,  whether  in  the  house  or  upon  the  market  place  *  *  *  ready  to  be 
silent  when  the  apostles  themselves  preach."  In  i  Cor.  xiv.,  he  sees  only  a 
requirement  of  order,  so  that  not  all  may  be  preaching  at  once,  but  one  after 
the  other,  and  then  remarks :  "  A  true  sermon  ought  to  come  in  like  a  speech 
at  a  collation  when  some  subject  is  under  discussion."  In  the  lVeit>iar  Ser. 
vions  of  1^22  (published  by  Ilock),  p.  91,  L.uther,  after  maintaining  as  before 
the  universal  ])riesthood  and,  ii]:)on  the  basis  of  this,  the  limitation  of  preaching 
to  the  separate  individuals  specifically  entrusted  with  it,  infers  from  i  Cor.  xiv. 
merely  that,  if  I  hear  any  one  preaching  wrongly,  I  ought  to  condemn  his 
doctrine  and  bid  him  surrender  his  office  (abtreten  :  step  down).  This  he 
maintains  against  the  Papists,  who  wauled  to  be  judges  of  the  Christian  Church. 
We  have  here,  therefore,  tlie  same  conception  of  i  Cor.  xiv.  as  in  the  writings 
above  cited. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiv,  280. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  9 1 

Meanwhile,  the  revolutionary  movements  of  the  "  fanatical 
spirits,"  who  paid  no  regard  whatever  to  human  appointment  or 
outward  order,  continued  upon  the  territory  of  the  Reformation. 

We  have  already  seen  how  Carlstadt  justified  his  view,  that  any 
one  should  preach  even  without  an  external  call.  He  did  not, 
nevertheless,  make  unrestricted  use  of  this  authority  in  his  own  case. 
When,  at  the  end  of  the  year  1523,  for  example,  he  forced  him- 
self into  the  position  of  minister  at  Orlamund,  which  was  already 
supplied  with  evangelical  preaching,  he  found  means  to  secure, 
at  the  same  time,  a  call  from  the  council  and  congregation  of  the 
city.  Luther  afterwards  told  the  people  of  Orlamund  that  his 
own  books  must  be  false,  if  Carlstadt  was  not  their  pastor,  since 
he  had  been  elected  by  them.  It  would  not  be  sufficient,  there- 
fore, as  against  him,  to  simply  repeat  the  general  requirement  of 
a  regular  call  to  the  ministry.  Luther  now  demands  of  him, 
however,  some  evidence  that  he  had  been  originally  invited  by 
the  people  of  Orlamund,  charging  upon  him  that  he  had,  in  reality, 
gone  thither  without  a  call  and  had  then  himself  persuaded  and 
incited  the  people  in  his  behalf.  La  addition  to  this,  he  charged 
him  with  having  deserted  his  position  at  Wittenberg  without  the 
permission  of  his  prince.  Luther,  therefore,  still  continued  to 
insist  that  Carlstadt  would  have  been  compelled  to  prove  his 
inner  call  by  miraculous  signs.  God,  he  maintained,  does  not 
violate  his  old  ordinances  by  the  institution  of  new  ones  without 
at  the  same  time  performing  great  miracles.  We  dare  not, 
therefore,  believe  any  one  who  appeals  to  his  spirit  and  inward 
feelings,  and  outwardly  rages  against  the  regular  order  of  God. 
As  to  the  right  of  the  congregation  in  general  to  elect  its  own 
pastor,  Luther  here  also,  as  shortly  afterward  in  addressing  the 
Peasants,  expresses  himself  as  follows  :  The  people  of  Orlamund 
had  no  authority,  under  any  circumstances,  to  elect  a  pastor  upon 
the  salary  which  belonged  to  another.  They  should  have  com- 
plained to  the  prince  and  the  University,  who  had  the  bestowal 
of  the  pastorate  in  their  power,  and  petitioned  for  a  Christian 
pastor.  If  the  prince  had  refused,  they  might  then  have  con- 
sidered what  further  course  to  pursue.' 

The  attempts  of  the  Anabaptists  to  force  their  way  into  the 
congregations  now  called  forth  frequently  from  Luther  new  and 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  391,  399  (Luther  and  Carlstadt  at  Jena,  A.  D,  1524) ;  xxix, 
172-176. 


92  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

emphatic  expositions  of  his  doctrine  upon  the  call  to  the  min- 
istry ;  as,  for  example,  in  the  sermon  of  the  Church  Postils  for 
the  Eighth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  in  the  Sermon  on  St.  Andrcui's 
Day  and  those  upon  the  Book  of  Exodus.  While  insisting  upon 
a  regular  call  {Berufensein)  for  every  preacher,  he  designates 
two  methods  of  calling,  the  immediate  and  the  mediate,  but 
traces  even  the  latter  back  to  God  Himself.  The  former  he  will 
grant  in  no  case  unless  attested  by  miracles,  even  though  the 
preacher  laying  claim  to  it  manifest  otherwise  the  proper  evan- 
gelical spirit.  He  regards  the  impression  held  by  such  9,  one  as 
a  temptation  by  which  God  is  testing  him,  to  see  whether  he  will 
abide  by  the  established  order.  By  the  mediate  call,  or  the  call 
from  God  through  men,  he  means  that  in  which  the  congregation, 
or  the  secular  authorities  in  behalf  of  the  congregation,  petition 
(for  a  particular  preacher) .'  He  designates  this  "  a  call  of  love.'' 
In  this  case,  that  is  to  say,  the  commandment,  "  Love  God,  and 
your  neighbor  as  yourself,"  is  held  before  the  minister  so  called 
by  the  people,  and,  impelled  by  God  through  the  power  of  this 
commandment,  he  is  authorized  without  any  miracle  to  preach. 
Here  again  an  exception  is  made  by  Luther,  for  the  case  in  which 
one  should  come  into  a  community  of  unchristian  people,  under 
which  circumstances  he  would  allow  love  to  address  itself,  without 
any  external  call,  to  the  ministry  of  the  Word.  We  would  there, 
says  he,  have  authority  to  do  as  the  apostles  did.  We  find 
nothing  here  said,  however,  of  an  extension  of  this  principle,  so 
as  to  cover  the  territory  within  the  bounds  of  Christendom  which 
is  still  without  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  illustration 
drawn  from  the  course  of  the  apostles  applies  rather  to  people 
not  even  formally  Christian."^ 

Luther,  incited  by  the  stubbornness  and  the  dangerous  char- 
acter of  the  intruders,  went  still  further,  at  length,  in  his  later 
writings ;  as,  for  example,  .in  the  Exposition  of  Psalm  Ixxxii, 
A.  D.  1530,  and  in  the  pamphlet.  Von  den  Schleichern  und 
Winkelpredigern,  A.  D.  1532.^  He  condemns,  first  of  all,  their 
secret  methods.  The  Holy  Spirit,  he  says,  does  not  sneak,  but  flies 
down  openly  from  heaven.     These  men  find  their  way  stealthily 

'The  later  editions  of  the  Postils  omit  the  words,  "  in  behalf  of  the  congre- 
gation :"  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  200. 

">■  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  ig&^'qq. ;   xv,  4  sqq.  ;   xxxv,  37  sqq. 
^  Ibid.,  xxxix,  253  sqq. ;  xxxi,  213  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  93 

to  the  side  of  toilers  in  the  harvest-field,  lonely  travelers  in  the 
woods,  etc.  If  they  were  honorable  men,  they  would  first  call 
upon  the  pastor,  show  him  their  call  to  the  ministry,  and  ask 
him  for  permission  to  preach  in  public.  This  he  does  not  mean, 
however,  as  an  assurance  that  he  would  acknowledge  their  call 
even  if  they  should  thus  openly  present  themselves,  since  he 
failed  to  recognize  in  them,  not  only  the  ordinary  mediate  call, 
but  that  inner  call  as  well,  which  requires  miraculous  attestation. 
He  warns  against  listening  to  these  men,  who  "  come  of  their 
own  choice  and  piety,"  even  though  they  profess  to  teach  the 
pure  Gospel — yea,  even  though  they  were  angels  and,  all  of  them, 
Gabriels  from  heaven.  Very  emphatically  does  he  now  also  insist 
upon  the  exclusive  authority  of  every  pastor  in  his  own  parish. 
To  each  one  has  been  committed,  according  to  i  Pet.  v.  3,  his 
portion  of  the  people  as  his  "  heritage  "  (/f^vpof).  Here  dare  no 
other,  without  his  knowledge  and  consent,  undertake  to  instruct 
the  parishioners  either  secretly  or  publicly.  The  case  was  differ- 
ent with  the  apostles ;  they  had  been  instructed  to  preach  af  all 
places,  and  hence  went  even  into  the  houses  of  strangers.  Now, 
every  pastor  has  his  definite  parish.' 

Luther's  conception  of  the  expressions  employed  by  the  apostle 
in  I  Cor.  xiv.  had  thus  received  a  characteristic  modification. 
The  "  Sneaks"  had  planted  themselves  upon  that  passage,  because 
it  appeared  to  give  them  authority  to  pass  judgment  upon  the 
regular  ministers  of  the  churches  and  to  claim  an  equal  right  to 
set  up  their  own  preaching  against  the  latter.  But  Luther  now, 
in  opposing  them,  makes  a  sharp  distinction  between  "  the 
prophets,  who  are  to  teach,  and  the  people  [der  Foel?el),  who  are 
to  listen."  And  he  recognizes  in  the  congregations  no  other 
"  prophets  "  than  the  teachers  to  whom  the  ministry  of  the  Word 
has  been  formally,  permanently  and  exclusively  committed.  Even 
from  these  he  demands  the  evidence  that  they  have  received 
such  commission  through  a  regular  call  from  their  fellowmen, 
unless  they  can  perform  miracles  in  attestation  of  their  authority. 
Without  such  an  office,  sharply  defined  and  conveyed  through  an 
external  call,  he  grants  to  no  Christian  the  authority  to  make 
any  peculiar  inner  endowment  which  he  may  possess  productive 
for  the  congregation  by  means  of  any  public  teaching  whatsoever. 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  214  sq. ;  xxxix,  254. 


94  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

He  sees  in  the  disputed  passage,  therefore,  instructions  designed 
only  for  the  regular  preachers  of  the  \^'ord,  and  not  for  the 
activity  of  such  members  of  the  congregation  at  large  as  may 
have  been  divinely  endowed  with  a  peculiar  gift  for  teaching. 
Whereas  he  had  previously  found  the  explanation  of  the  prohibi- 
tion of  preaching  by  women  in  their  lack  of  fitness,  he  now  sees 
in  it  an  evidence  that  Paul  is  there  speaking  only  of  regular 
ministers.  If  the  apostle  had  there  meant  to  command  the  con- 
gregation, and  not  only  the  preachers,  to  preach,  he  could  not 
thus  have  forbidden  the  women,  who  are  also  a  part  of  the  con- 
gregation. He  does  not  even  think  of  the  possibility  that  there 
may  be  yet  an  intermediate  position, — between  the  limitation  of 
preaching  to  the  officials  thus  formally  and  permanently  appointed 
and  a  preaching  of  the  congregation  at  large. 

His  conception  of  the  order  of  worship  as  represented  in 
I  Cor.  xiv.  is  now  as  follows  :  The  prophets  "  sat  in  the  church 
among  the  people  as  the  regular  pastois  and  preachers,^''  and 
one  or  two  of  them  sang  or  read  the  text.  One  of  them,  whose 
turn  (or  duty)  it  was,  spoke  upon  the  text  and  expounded  it. 
Then  another  of  them  might  speak  upon  it,  confirming  what  had 
been  said,  or  explaining  more  fully.  It  was  very  much  as  in  the 
assembly  of  a  prince's  council,  or  in  the  meeting  of  a  burgomaster 
with  his  fellow-counselors,  when  one  after  another  rises  and 
they  assist  one  another  in  their  deliberations.  Thus  the  prophets 
were  the  church-council,  whose  duty  it  was  to  teach  the  Scriptures 
and  to  govern  and  provide  for  the  congregation.  But  no  citizen 
dare  force  his  way  unbidden  into  the  council,  to  overpower  the 
burgomaster ;  much  less  may  a  sneaking  stranger  or  a  layman 
intrude  upon  the  spiritual  council.  He  understands,  still  more 
precisely,  by  thos'e  who  "  speak  with  tongues  "  the  ministers  who 
read  or  sing  the  text,  and  by  the  prophets,  those  who  "  expound 
the  text."  The  " 'lf5/(j-;/c  "  of  i  Cor.  xiv.  i6,  is  for  him  any 
member  of  the  congregation,  and  is  restricted  to  the  hearing  of 
the  Word.  He  translates  the  word,  "  layman."  He  finds  the 
"  difference  between  the  prerfcher  and  layman "  here  clearly 
expressed.  Thus,  while  he  steadfastly  maintains  the  peculiar 
"  spiritual  "  and  the  general  "  priestly  "  character  of  all  believers, 
and,  no  less,  demands  a  certain  external  exercise  of  the  universal 
priesthood,  attributing  especially  to  every  member  of  the  congre- 
gation the  duty  of  imparting  proper  instruction  within  the  family 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  95 

circle,  yet,  in  so  far  as  the  exercise  of  the  ofifice  of  pnbhc  instruc- 
tion within  the  congregation  is  concerned,  he  adopted  a  very  rigid 
conception  of  the  Hmitations  of  the  laity.  He  still  finds  a  "  little 
indication  or  trifling  footprint  "  of  the  apostolic  order,  as  traced 
above,  in  the  cases  where  "  one  sings  after  another  in  the  chancel, 
and  one  lesson  is  read  after  the  other,"  etc.,  and,  still  further, 
where  one  preacher  translates  the  lesson  read  by  another.  He 
fears,  however,  that  if  the  old  method  were  now  revived,  the 
people  would  prove  too  wild  and  forward.  An  evil  spirit  might 
Ji  find  its  way  into  the  midst  of  the  pastors,  preachers  and  chap- 
lains, so  that  they  might  fall  to  struggling  among  themselves  for 
thejLScendancy  and  to  quarreling  and  biting  one  another  in  the 
presence  of  the  people.  Paul  did  not,  moreover,  wish  to  urge  so 
strongly  that  the  same  method  should  always  be  observed,  but 
only  that  all  things  be  done  in  an  orderly  way,  and  he  cited  this 
method  merely  as  an  example.  Here,  again,  we  observe  that 
Luther  regards  the  prpphets  as  represented  by  the  "  pastors, 
preachers  and  chaplains  "  of  the  modern  Church,  /.  e.,  the  for- 
mally appointed  ministers  of  the  Word.  The  same  interpretation 
underlies  a  publication  of  A.  D.  1531,  in  which  Luther  says  that 
where  anything  is  revealed  to  another  than  the  chief  teacher,  the 
latter  should,  according  to  i  Cor.  xiv.  30,  keep  silent  and  submit 
{folgcii) ,  The  "  chief  teacher  "  is  here  the  highest  ofificial  among 
the  regular  teachers,  corresponding  to  the  burgomaster  in  the 
council  of  a  city  (Luther  is  in  this  passage  speaking  of  the 
authority  of  his  own  public  testimony  as  over  against  papal 
superiors  in  the  Church).' 

Luther  now,  at  lerigth,  kaves  no  longer  any  room  for  the  free 
exercise  of  public  instruction^upon  the  part  of  such  individual 
Christians  as  know*  themselves  to  be  in  possession  of  the  truth 
and  as  feel  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit,  even  in  localities  in  which 
the  present  incumbent  of  the  ministerial  ofifice  is  actually  open  to 
the  charge  of  failing  to  teach  the  truth.  He  urges,  as  we  have 
seen,  that  the  supposed  teachers,  instead  of  sneaking  about,  ad- 
dress themselves  to  the  pastors  of  each  locality.  Should  they 
here  meet  with  a  repulse,  he  then  commands  them  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  attempt  which  they  have  made,  without  any  regard  to 
the   question   whether   the    congregations   involved    be   not    in 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi.  220-226;  xxv.  87. 


96  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

need  of  purer  teaching :  they  are  exonerated  before  God,  and 
ma)'  shake  off  the  dust  from  their  feet.  Even  still  more  plainly, 
he  declares  that,  if  God  does  not  awaken  some  whom  He  Himself 
attests  by  signs  and  deeds,  outside  of  and  above  the  established 
order,  we  are  bound  to  observe  such  order,  and  leave  the  matter 
to  the  regularly  appointed  officials  :  "  If  they  do  not  teach  rightly, 
what  have  you  to  do  with  that?  You  certainly  will  not  be  called 
to  account  for  it."  He  even  applies  this  principle  expressly  to 
the  preaching  under  the  Papists.  When  he  insists,  in  the  above- 
mentioned  passage  in  the  Exposition  of  Ps.  Ixxxii,  upon  the  ex- 
clusive authority  of  the  pastor  in  every  parish,  he  grants  such 
authority  to  the  popish  parish-priests  and  other  errorists,  if  they 
be  but  reg^arly-ordained  pastors.  He  proceeds  then  to  say : 
"  We  should,  therefore,  firmly  maintain,  that  no  preacher  what- 
soever, however  pious  or  trustworthy,  should  presume  to  preach 
to,  or  secretly  to  teach,  the  parishioners  of  a  popish  or  heretical 
pastor  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  the  pastor  in 
question.' 

But  how  then,  may  we  ask,  did  Luther  justify  his  own  teaching 
upon  so  widely  extended  a  field?  Often  and  earnestly  did  he 
refer  to  the  office  of  Doctor  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  had 
been  regularly,  and  without  any  agency  of  his  own,  conferred  upon 
him,  and  found  in  it  encouragement,  comfort  and  urgent  obliga- 
tion to  put  forth  efforts  for  which  he  would  have  otherwise  had 
neither  courage  and  resolution,  nor  strength  and  blessing.  He 
now,  likewise,  relies  upon  this  as,  though  a  preacher  at  Wit- 
tenberg only,  he  yet  undertakes  through  his  books  to  teach 
throughout  the  whole  world.  When  he  was  compelled  to  become 
a  doctor,  he  declares,  he  did  not  assume  the  office  willingly,  but 
was  forced  and  driven  into  it.  He  there  began,  as  a  Doctor  in  a 
common,  free  University  by  papal  and  imperial  decree,  and,  as  he 
was  bound  by  this,  his  sworn  position,  to  do,  to  expound  the 
Scriptures  before  the  whole  world  and  instruct  all  men ;  and, 
having  once  entered  upon  such  work,  he  has  been  compelled  to 
keep  at  it,  and  cannot  even  now  withdraw  with  a  good  con- 
science. At  the  same  time,  Luther  would  reserve  also  to  others 
than  doctors  the  liberty  of  working  in  wider  circles  by  means  of 
books.     Even  in  his  office  as  a  preacher,  he  adds,  he  had  sought 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  215,  223;  xxxix.  254.     Coram,  ad  Gal.,i,  3I. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  97 

to  instruct  his  people  by  means  of  writings,  and  when  others 
desired  to  have  his  books  and  asked  him  for  them,  he  was  in 
duty  bound  to  furnish  them,  without  ever  pressing  himself  forward 
anywhere:  just  as  other  pastors  and  preachers  also  write  books 
and  sally  forth  upon  the  world  with  them,  without  forbidding  any 
one  to  read  them  or  compelling  any  one  to  teach  their  doctrines, 
and  without  sneaking  into  the  folds  of  other  pastors.'  He  thus 
recognizes,  it  will  be  observed,  a  "  call  of  love  "  for  literary 
activity  in  a  wider  sense  than  that  in  which  we  have  heard  him 
speak  of  such  a  call  in  connection  with  the  relation  of  minister 
and  congregation. 

If  Luther  sought  to  restrain  the  public  preaching  of  the  Word 
within  such  narrow  bounds,  it  was  natural  that  he  should  de- 
nounce it  far  more  severely  when  the  multitude,  or  zealous,  un- 
authorized individual  leaders,  sought  to  assail  the  current  abuses 
in  doctrine  and  worship  with  violent  measures.  For  such  denun- 
ciations Carlstadt  had  already  given  him  urgent  occasion.  Luther 
had  above  all  things  desired  that  only  the  bare  Word  should  be 
employed  to  gain  the  hearts  of  men.  Where  he  had  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Word  had  sufificiently  accomplished  this  end,  he 
allowed  the  anti- evangelical  portions  of  the  established  forms  of 
worship  to  be  abolished  by  external  statutes.  Carlstadt's  demands 
in  regard  to  such  matters  sprung  naturally  from  the  two  marked 
features  of  his  general  tendency  which  have  been  already  noted. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  claimed  that  the  Spirit  should  work  unhin- 
dered in  all  and  break  forth  openly,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
that  this  violent  outbreak  should  be  guided  by  the  examples  and 
commandments  of  the  Old  Testament.  Luther,  on  the  contrary, 
while  rejecting  in  general  all  ecclesiastical  authorization  or  special 
call  as  justifying  such  conduct,  refused  also  to  recognize  Mosaism 
as  furnishing  it  any  support.  He  did  not  even  find  such  (blind) 
zeal  allowed  within  the  sphere  of  Mosaism  itself  while  the  latter 
was  in  force.  Wherever,  he  asserts,  God  commands  the  people 
to  do  any  particular  thing,  as,  e.  g.,  to  destroy  the  idols,  He  does 
not  seek  to  have  it  done  by  the  multitude  without  the  regular 
authorities,  but  by  the  authorities  together  with  the  people.  The 
work  was  conducted,  not  by  the  multitude,  but  by  the  authorities. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  256.  Upon  the  privileges  of  the  doctorate,  Comm.  ad. 
Gal.,i.  31. 

7 


95  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

The  Gospel,  according  to  Luther,  gives  to  the  individual  no 
autliority  whatever  for  such  outward  demonstrations.  Thus  it 
belongs,  he  holds,  to  the  constituted  authorities  alone,  to  whom 
this  office  has  been  committed,  to  keep  oversight  over  the  whole 
matter  of  external  obedience  to  the  divine  will  and  to  adopt 
external  legal  measures.  The  immediate  consequence  of  Carl- 
stadt's  principle  would  be,  in  the  opinion  of  Luther,  that  we  should 
be  compelled  to  allow  the  multitude,  whom  we  should  thu^  per- 
mit to  make  one  law  of  God,  liberty  to  make  others  also ;  and 
that  thus  all  governmental  authority  would  be  destroyed.' 

We  reserve  for  our  closing  Book  a  historical  review  of  the  more 
specific  principles  which  Luther,  in  the  course  of  time,  enunciated 
for  the  direction  of  such  reformatory  activity  upon  the  part  of 
the  government  within  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

Section  IL    Opposition  to   Theories   of  the   Lord's   Supper 
Advanced  by  Zwingli  and  QIcolampadius. 

introductory — relation  of  zwinglian  views  tq  those  of  the 

fanatics. 

In  so  far  as  Luther  was  called  upon  tq  contend,  within  the 
territory  of  the  Reformation,  for  the  necessity  of  the  external 
Word  of  God,  infant  baptism,  and  a  proper  call  as  a  pre-requisite 
for  official  labor  in  the  Church,  he  had  to  deal  with  a  general 
view  and  tendency  which  reached  essentially  its  full  culmination 
in  the  fanatical  agitations  originating  at  the  close  of  the  year  15  21 
and  in  the  developments  immediately  connected  with  them. 

The  case  was  different  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  It  is  not  difficult,  indeed,  to  point  out  a  relationship 
between  the  point  of  view  occupied  by  Zwingli  and  (Ecolampa- 
dius  and  that  of  the  Fanatics.  There  was  one  general  interest 
inspiring  and  guiding  the  former,  which  lay  also  at  the  basis  of 
the  theories  of  Carlstadt  and  other  "  fanatical  spirits."  Luther 
points  it  out  to  us  when  he  feels  authorized  and  compelled,  from 
his  point  of  view,  to  condemn  them  all  alike  as  being  "  altogether 
too  evangelical,"  and  alwa3'S  crying,  "  Spirit !  Spirit !"  It  was, 
that  is  to  say,  an  interest  in  the  preservation  of  the  spiritual 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  146  sqq.,  162  sq.  Briefe,  ii,^  657.  Already  in  1522 
appeared  Luther's  Warning  against  Insurrection.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  43  sqq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT    THE    WARTEURG.  99 

character  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  administration  of  salvation, 
as  they  conceived  these,  in  opposition  to  a  new  binding  and 
degradation  of  the  divine  to  external  earthly  ceremonies,  such  as 
seemed  to  them  to  threaten  under  the  teachings  of  Luther. 
But,  however  decidedly  we  may  judge  an  CEcolampadius  and  a 
Zwingli  as  being  also  in  error  in  their  advocacy  of  this  interest, 
yet  in  how  much  purer  a  form,  at  least,  did  that  interest  find 
expression  in  them  than  in  the  rampant  fanaticisms  of  others. 
How  false  it  would  be  to  maintain  that  it  was  essentially  the  very 
same  spirit  which  inspired  these  two  parties,  and  that  the  only 
difference  between  them  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  lay  simply  in  the  particular  interpretation  of  the  words 
of  institution  by  which  they  respectively  sought  to  disprove  the 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ !  Luther  himself  insists 
that  all  these  spirits  must  be  tested  by  their  practical  fruits.  He 
then  thinks  that  he  recognizes  in  CEcolampadius  precisely  the 
same  spirit  as  jn  Carlstadt  and  even  Miinzer,  and  anxiously  infers 
that  the  same  spirit  must  still  give  rise  to  the  same  disorders — 
must  remain  murderous  and  insurrectionary.'  But  who  will  nozv 
dare  to  say  that  the  similarity  of  the  tree  has  been  thus  actually 
proved  by  the  similarity  of  the  fruit?  And  could  any  such 
affiliation  have  been  even  thought  of  as  a  possibility  between 
Luther  and  a  Carlstadt,  or  a  Miinzer,  as  that  which  was  after- 
wards brought  about  between  the  former  and  the  adherents  of 
the  Swiss  Reformation,  and  which,  although  not  fruitful  of  lasting 
results,  was  for  a  considerable  time  zealously  and  hopefully  culti- 
vated by  Luther  himself? 

Luther's  apprehension  of  the  new  doctrine  touching  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  very  profoundly  influenced,  as  was  remarked  at  the 
opening  of  the  present  chapter,  by  the  intimate  relation  in  which 
it  stood,  as  first  presented  to  his  view,  with  that  of  Carlstadt. 
But  the  means  to  which  the  new  opponents — very  differently 
from  a  Carlstadt — resorted  in  theological  assault  upon  him, 
called  forth  upon  his  part  a  new  and  rich  exposition  and  authen- 
tication of  his  doctrine.  Very  significant,  finally,  in  revealing  his 
position,  is  the  extent  to  which  he  at  first  yielded  to  the  attempts 
at  reconciliation ;  and,  none  the  less,  the  way  in  which  he  at  last 
denounced  the  stiff-necked  Zwinglians. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  136,  138. 


lOO  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

I.  First  Public  Criticism  of  the  Views  of  Zwingli  attd 
CEcolampaditis. 

SUSPICIOUS  CIRCUMSTANCES — LETTER  TO  STRASSBURGERS "  SIGNIFIES  " 

SYNGRAMMA GIFT  IN  SACRAINIENT THE  WORD  BRINGS  THE  BODY 

REAL    VS.    IDEAL    PARTICIPATION BODILY    PRESENCE    IN    HEAVEN 

AND  IN  SACRAMENT COMMUNION  OF  SAINTS LUTHER'S   ATTITUDE. 

The  letter  of  Luther  in  which  he  says  that  Zwingli  has  adopted 
Carlstadt's  view  of  the  sacrament '  was  written  already  in  the 
year  1524.  It  was  only  in  the  following  year  that  Zwingli  and 
Qicolampadius  publicly  announced  their  doctrine  upon  the  Lord's 
Supper.  He  regards  it  as  a  circumstance  calculated  to  awaken 
suspicion  against  both,  that  this  opinion,  according  to  which  the 
body  and  blood  are  not  supposed  to  be  present,  had  first  been 
advanced  by  Carlstadt.  They  even,  he  declares,  despite  all  their 
earnest  disavowals,  yet  really  are  themselves  constantly  falling 
back  upon  the  very  arguments  which  the  latter  employs.  Already 
he  detects  also  other  fundamental  errors  in  Zwingli.  He  admon- 
ishes the  ministers  at  Strassburg  to  note  how  far  Zwingli  goes  in 
his  deliverances  concerning  original  sin.  In  this,  he  doubtless 
refers  to  that  conception  of  original  sin  in  which  it  appears  as  3 
mere  fault,  and  not  as  real  sin,  and  in  which,  as  is  implied  in 
earlier  utterances  of  Zwingli  in  regard  to  children,  it  does  not  in 
itself  embrace  liability  to  eternal  punishment.  Then,  too,  he 
sees  new  leaders  constantly  appearing  in  the  "  Sect  of  the  Sacra- 
mentarians."  There  are  already  six,  says  he  in  the  spring  of 
1526,  and  the  seventh  may  perhaps  soon  come.  We  can  trace, 
among  those  whom  he  mentions,  after  the  first  three,  /.  e.,  Carl- 
stadt, Zwingli  and  (Ecolampadius,  especially  Schwenkfeld  and 
Krautwald ;  his  designation  of  the  others  is  not  perfectly  clear. 
This  multiplicity  of  the  attempts  to  interpret  the  real  presence 
out  of  the  words  of  institution  was  to  him  an  evidence,  not  alone 
of  the  wide  dissemination  of  the  poison,  but  also,  and  especially, 
of  the  essentially  untenable  nature  of  the  view  itself.^ 

He  did  not  as  yet  issue  any  publication  directed  expressly 

'  Cf.  supra,  p.  71. 

=  Briefe,  ii,  571;  iii.  36,42,  81  sq.,  98  (cf.,  as  to  the  Petrus  Florus  here 
mentioned,  Briefe,  vi,  615,  Anm.  10).     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  181  sq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  lOI 

against  the  new  opponents.  He  briefly  discusses  the  arguments 
of  Zwingli  and  OEcolampadius,  however,  in  the  Letter  to  the 
Strassburgers  in  1525.  His  counter-arguments  here  are  in  the 
hne  of  those  which  we  have  already  met  in  his  treatise  prepared 
for  the  Bohemians  and  in  that  directed  against  the  Heavenly 
Prophets.  He  demands  that  the  Zwinglian  interpretation  of  the 
"  is,"  as  equivalent  to  "  signifies,"  be  specially  proved  to  be 
applicable  to  the  words  of  institution.  That  this  interpretation 
finds  illustration  also  in  i  Cor.  x.  4,  he  again  disproves  as  he  had 
done  in  controversy  with  Carlstadt,  Zwingli  had  quoted,  as  a 
further  example,  Ex..  xii.  11  :  "  Eat  it  (the  passover-lamb) ,  for 
it  is  the  Lord's  Passover,"  claiming  that  the  lamb  here  "  signi- 
fies "  the  Passover.  Luther,  in  reply,  holds  the  meaning  to  be  : 
"  Eat,  do  all  this,  for  this  is  the  day  of  th^  Passover,  or  passing- 
over  of  the  Lord.."  He  would  grant  the  sense  of  "  signify  "  in 
the  words,  "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament,"  '\\  the  other  words, 
"  in  my  blood,"  did  not  stand  in  immediate  connection.  Thus 
it  is  evident  that  the  cup  in  itself  is  nothing,  but  by  virtue  of  the 
blood  it  is  really  the  testament,  since  the  blood  could  not  have 
been  offered  without  the  cup.  The  difference  between  himself 
and  the  Sacramentarians  appears  to  him  so.  immense  {gezoaltig), 
that  either  he  or  they  must  be  the  servants  of  Satan.  The  idea 
had  already  been  advocated  among  the  Strassburgers,  that 
believers  should  be  advised  to  turn  their  thoughts  away  from  the 
whole  question  of  the  presence  of  the  body,  and  "  exercise  " 
themselves  only  "  in  the  Word  and  faith."  Of  this,  Luther  will 
hear  nothing.  Among  us,  says  he,  the  Word  is  not  without  that 
of  which  it  speaks,  nor  faith  without  that  in  which  it  believes. 
Moreover,  this  counsel  comes  too  late.  We  cannot  turn  the 
minds  of  the  people  away  from  the  question  after  the  opponents 
have  published  so  many  books  upon  it.' 

The  first  testimony  of  Luther  against  the  new  theory  which 
appeared  in  print  was  in  a  publication  made  by  others,  i.  <?.,  the 
SvNGRAMMA  of  the  Swabian  ministers,  directed  mainly  against 
CEcolampadius.  The  Prefaces  for  two  German  editions  of  this 
work  in  the  year  1526  were  from  his  hand.^ 

It  does  not  belong  to  our  present  task,  nor  have  we  the  neces- 

1  Briefe,  iii,  44  sq.,  47. 

■''Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  179  sqq.  Luther  mentions  a  second  edition  of  the  work 
already  on  Feb.  13,  1526  :  Briefe,  iii,  93. 


I02  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

sary  space,  to  examine  this  work  and,  by  an  exhaustive  analysis 
of  it,  reach  a  decision  as  to  the  comparative  merits  of  the  various 
estimates  which  have  recently  been  placed  upon  it.  There  will 
always  remain  some  points  of  obscurity  in  connection  with  it, 
originating  evidently  in  the  position  occupied  at  that  time  by 
the  authors,  among  whom  Brentz  wielded  the  pen.  But  only 
niisponception  of  the  language  employed  can  fail  to  recognize 
that,  at  all  events,  the  authors,  like  Luther,  also  lay  the  whole 
stress  upon  the  gift  which  is  bestowed  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
that  they  seek  to  fix  attention  upon  this  as  the  body  of  Christ, 
truly  present  in  the  sacrament.  And  it  is,  further,  easily  to  be  seen, 
that  the  way  and  manner  in  which  they  conceived  of  this  presence 
differed  in  essential  respects  from  that  doctrinal  form  which  had 
then  aready  become  so  firmly  established  in  the  mind  of  Luther. 
The  aim  of  the  Syiigra/n/iia  is  directed  against  CEcolampadius, 
who  regarded  the  bread  as  a  mere  figure  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
The  Swabian  ministers  see  in  the  rise  of  this  theory  a  scheme  of 
the  devil,  who  seeks  by  this  means  to  snatch  away  from  believers 
the  true  body  of  Christ.  And  the  efficient  cause  ( Ursache) ,  on 
account  of  which  the  bread  is  no  more  bare  bread,  but,  while 
remaining  bread,  is  at  the  same  time  the  body  of  Christ,  is  for 
them,  as  for  Luther,  the  divine  Word  which  is  added  to  (comes 
to)  the  bread  at  the  celebration  of  the  Supper.  Not  only  do 
they  here,  with  Luther,  approve  the  old  maxim  :  "  accedit  verbuin 
ad  elcmentuin  et  fit  sacramentuin  "/  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
discussions  of  the  subject  by  Luther  himself  have  had  a  deter- 
mining influence  upon  them.  Just  as  they  now  appeal  to  the 
power  of  God,  by  virtue  of  which  the  body  of  Christ  becomes 
present  through  the  Word,  so  have  we  heard  Luther,  shortly 
before,  directing  his  hearers  to  the  "  divine,  almighty  "  words. 
Compared  with  the  relation  existing  in  other  cases,  as  in  that  of 
the  brazen  serpent,  between  the  Word  and  outward  sensible 
objects,  the  similar  relation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  was  conceived 
by  them  as  follows :  The  serpent  remains  a  serpent,  but  has 
healing  power  by  virtue  of  the  Word  which  is  connected  with  it ; 
and  just  as,  in  this  case,  the  Word  has  brought  with  it  to  the 
serpent  the  healing  power,  so  the  body  itself  is  brought  into  the 
bread  through  the  Word  :  "  This  is  my  body."  Even  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  analogy  between  the  Old  Testament  signs 
of  grace  and  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  is  described,  and,  at  the 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  IO3 

same  time,  the  peculiarity  of  the  latter  as  distinguished  from  the 
former,  the  Syngraiiima  harmonizes  with  the  earlier  representa- 
tions of  Luther.  Still  further,  the  blessing  bestowed  by  the 
Lord's  Supper  by  virtue  of  the  accompanying  words  is  placed, 
as  by  Luther,  in  the  comforting  of  the  conscience,  whose  sins  are 
remitted  in  accordance  with  the  gracious  promise  of  the  Word. 
The  blood  presented  in  the  cup  is  declared  also  to  be  a  pledge 
and  seal  of  the  New  Testament,  which  latter  consists  just  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  In  the  words  of  institution,  "  This  is  my 
blood  of  the  New  Testament,"  it  is  not  a  bare  sign  of  the  blood 
that  is  spoken  of,  but  the  blood  itself  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
eternal  happiness  secured.' 

Yet  even  here  already  we  must  not  fail  to  observe  a  difference 
between  these  writers  and  Luther.  Whenever  he  calls  the  atten- 
tion of  believers  to  the  words  of  institution,  he  lays  stress  upon 
them  especially  as  offering  to  faith,  by  virtue  of  the  "  given  for 
you,"  the  remission  of  sins.  The  Swabians  fix  the  attention 
chiefly  upon  the  relation  of  the  words  to  the  body,  which  they 
through  and  in  themselves  bring  with  them.  The  fact  that  the 
words  bring  the  remission  of  sins  is  with  them  more  of  a  secondary 
consideration.  "  The  Word  brings  to  the  bread  that  which  it 
contains  in  itself ;  but  it  contains  the  truly  corporeal  body  {corpus 
Christi  7'cre  corporale^  of  Christ." 

This  efficacy  the  Word  of  the  =sacrament,  according  to  the 
Syngramma,  possesses  in  common  with  all  the  divine  words  of 
the  gospel  proclamation.  The  maxim  :  The  Word  brings  with  it 
what  it  contains  in  itself,  "is  «of  universal  application.  Thus,  in 
the  words  of  Christ,  "  Peace  be  with  you,"  peace  and  forgiveness 
are  actually  present ;  and  this  is  effected  by  the  same  power  by 
which  the  body  and  blood  are  present  in  the  bread  and  wine. 
Thus  God  Himself  is  present  through  His  Word.  Yea,  thus  the 
true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  already  brought  into  the  hearts 
of  men  by  the  bare  Word.  When  Christ  said,  "  My  body  is 
given  for  you,"  etc..  He,  so  to  speak,  locked  up  in  this  \^'ord 
His  body  and  His  blood  :  "  for  if  the  Word  alone  is  of  such 
energy,  and  brings  to  us  the  corporeal  body  of  Christ,  /.  e.  that 
body  which  is  given  for  us,  why  should  it  not  retain  the  same 
energy  when  it  accompanies  the  bread  and  the  cup?"  ^ 

iWalch,  XX,  692,  694,  674,  677,  673,  675.  687  sq. 
2 In  Walch,  pp.  677,  698  sq. 


I04  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

But  do  the  words  of  institution,  according  to  all  the  above, 
leally  bring  with  them  for  every  recipient  of  the  sacrament  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ?  With  the  answer  to  this  question, 
the  difference  between  the  doctrine  of  Luther  and  that  of  the 
Syngraniiiia  becomes  at  length  a  direct  contradiction.  The 
answer  of  the  latter  is  dictated  immediately  by  the  comparison 
of  the  words  of  institution  and  their  power  with  the  words  of 
God  in  general,  and  by  the  peculiar  way  in  which  their  power  is 
here  conceived  to  act.  With  the  Word,  we  are  told,  follows  the 
real  {zvahrhaftig)  thing  which  is  indicated  by  the  Word.  But 
it  follows,  as  the  Syngramvia  everywhere  presupposes,  only  for 
those  who  have  the  susceptibility  required  for  the  reception  of 
the  Word,  /.  e.,  for  believers.  The  authors  speak,  in  the  passage 
above  cited,  of  an  engrafting  upon  the  heart ;  and  this,  they  say, 
occurs  through  the  words,  when  the  latter  are  apprehended  by 
faith.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  so  included  (locked 
up)  in  the  words,  "  that  whoever  grasps  and  believes  and  holds 
this  Word  in  faith,  grasps  *  *  *  the  true  body  and  true 
blood  of  Christ,  /.  e.,  not  spiritual  blood,  but  that  carnal  blood 
that  was  shed  for  us."  To  the  proposition,  that  the  Word  makes 
God  present,  is  appended  the  second  thesis,  /.  e.,  that  faith,  in 
believing,  makes  God  present — but  faith  without  the  Word  is  said 
to  be  no  faith.  In  exactly  the  same  way,  we  find  also  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body  in  the  Lord's  Supper  spoken  of.  The  Syn- 
gramvia  knows  here  also  no  other  kind  of  participation  than  that 
which  is  realized  wherever  in  other  ways  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  or,  in  general.  His  person,  or  God  Himself,  is  brought 
near  to  us.  It  knows  nothing  of  a  participation  merely  with  the 
mouth,  which  is  supposed,  as  the  body  is  brought  through  the 
Word  into  the  bread,  to  be  consummated  in  the  case  of  every 
recipient  of  the  bread,  and  to  which  is  then  to  be  added,  in  the 
case  of  the  believing  recipient,  also  the  spiritual  participation. 
It  knows  nothing  of  that  which  Luther  calls  bodily  participation, 
but  only  that  which  he  designates  a  spiritual  eating  of  the  body. 
The  distinction  between  the  view  here  advocated  and  that  of 
Luther  becomes  very  clearly  manifest  when  we  find  the  objects 
presented  in  the  sacrament  differentiated  in  such  statements  as 
the  following :  That  which  we  eat,  /.  e.,  the  bread,  goes  into  the 
stomach,  but  that  which  we  believe,  goes  into  the  soul.  We  may, 
indeed,  speak  of  an  eating  of  the  body  of  Christ;  that  is,  we  may 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  IO5 

attribute  to  the  body  that  which  belongs  to  the  bread,  /.  e.,  eating 
and  chewing,  just  as  Christ  speaks  of  His  body  as  being  broken, 
although  this  is  a  characteristic  not  of  the  body  but  only  of  the 
bread.  The  manner  in  which  the  body  itself  is  thus  appropriated 
is  then  again  described  as  analogous  to  that  in  which  the  preached 
Word  is  appropriated.  It  is,  in  both  instances,  a  reception 
adapted  to  the  organ  which  is  here  brought  into  consideration, 
/.  c,  faith.  "  Just  as  faith  receives  in  accordance  with  its  own 
nature  the  Word  which  is  caught  by  the  ears,  so  also  the  body, 
which  is  received  with  the  bread,  is  appropriated  in  accordance 
with  the  nature  of  faith  {pro  ratioae  fdei).  In  answer  to  the 
question,  how  that  which  is  bodily  (body  and  blood)  can  become 
the  object  of  such  an  appropriation,  a  comparison  is  drawn  with 
wine,  which,  when  placed  in  a  vessel  impregnated  with  sulphur, 
becomes  sulphurous.  Just  as  it  comes  to  pass  through  the  nature 
of  sulphur  that  the  wine  becomes  sulphurous,  so  it  is  said  to 
come  to  pass  through  the  nature  of  faith,  which  is  a  spiritual 
nature,  that  the  body  is  truly  received  into  the  heart,  or  spirit- 
ually appropriated,  and  thus,  "  assuinitur  pro  7-atione  fideiy  Of 
a  reception  of  the  body  of  Christ  into  the  body  of  the  commu- 
nicant, and,  further,  even  into  that  of  the  unbelieving  communi- 
cant, the  Syngramma  evidently  knows  nothing.  That  which  may 
and  should  enter  into  man  in  the  reception  of  the  sacrament  is 
nothing  else  than  that  which  enters  into  him  also  in  the  appro- 
priation indicated  in  John  vi.  The  distinction  which  Luther 
always  made  in  this  respect  between  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the 
experience  described  in  John  vi.  does  not  here  exist.' 

It  might  be  asked,  what  significance,  according  to  all  the 
above,  attaches  to  the  Lord's  Supper  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that 
the  Word  here  also  brings  the  body  "  into  the  bread,"  beyond 
that  of  any  other  presentation  of  Christ  and  His  body,  when  the 
Word  comes  to  man  of  itself,  alone,  without  the  bread.  The 
present  work  does  not  enter  upon  any  explanation  of  this  prob- 
lem. We  can  say  no  more  than  that  the  outward,  sensible 
element,  in  which,  in  the  case  of  the  sacrament,  faith  is  through 
the  Word  to  find  the  body,  serves  in  a  peculiar  way  for  the  incite- 
ment and  confirmation  of  faith ;  just  as,  even  in  the  illustrations 
drawn  above  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  external  object  already 

1  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  393. 


Io6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

had  this  value,  and  as,  according  to  Luther  himself,  the  spiritual 
participation,  which  he  by  no  means  confines  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  but  which  he  presents  as  there  additional  to  the  bodily 
participation,  is  promoted  by  the  visible  outward  element.' 

We  might  be  inclined  to  interpret  the  Syni^rajinna  as  regarding 
the  participation  of  faith  as  spiritual  in  the  sense,  that  it  is  a 
merely  ideal,  as  opposed  to  a  real,  participation.  \\\  favor  of 
this  might  be  quoted  a  yet  more  sweeping  comment  of  the  book 
upon  the  significance  of  words  in  general.  Words,  it  says,-'  bring 
with  them  the  inner  objects,  or  the  things  of  the  mind  {Gemiith  : 
soul),  of  which  they  speak,  ajid  as  soon  as  they  find  lodgment 
within  us  {in  t/vs  haftcii),  we  are  accustomed  to  say:  "  Now  I 
have  it."  Is  this,  it  might  naturally  be  asked,  a  real  having,  and 
not  merely  a  having  in  imagination,  in  apprehension,  in  devout 
contemplation?  Is  not  thus,  in  the  bread  of  the  sacrament,  the 
crucified  body  of  Christ,  or  His  atoning  sufferings  and  death, 
only  somewhat  more  impressively  made  ideally  present  to  us? 
The  same  inference  might  be  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  the 
emphasis  is  so  often  and  strongly  laid  in  the  Lord's  Supper  upon 
the  bodily  character,  the  carnality,  of  the  body  and  blood  (cf. 
supra  :  sanguine?n  non  spiritiialem  sed  carnale?n)  ,^  and  not  upon 
the  body  as  it  now  actually  exists  in  its  glorified  state.  Is  not, 
it  may  be  asked,  according  to  this,  the  body  made  present  as  it 
once  was,  and  as  it  suffered,  and  as  it  still  presents  itself  to  the 
believing  remembrance  of  the  sacred  scenes  of  old,  but  as  it  in 
reality  is  now  no  more?  But  the  zeal  with  which  the  Sxngraninia 
insists  directly  upon  the  true  presence,  and  the  opposition  to 
G^colampadius,  which  constitutes  the  aim  of  the  entire  work, 
leave  no  room  for  such  an  interpretation  of  its  language.  Such 
a  conception  did  not  lie  in  the  mind  of  the  authors.  The  latter, 
even  in  the  other  words  cited,  which  offer  Christ  to  faith,  always 
think  of  a  true  entrance  of  Christ  into  the  believer,  without  stop- 
ping to  reflect  that  the  "  I  have  it  "  is  yet,  in  other  cases,  also 
commonly  used  in  the  other  sense.  We  can  charge  upon  them 
even  here,  therefore,  nothing  more  than  a  lack  of  clearness  in  defi- 
nition and  in  the  discrimination  of  the  various  elements  and 
questions   involved.      That   the  above-suggested   inference  from 

nValch,  677  (Introd.  38),  698  (Introd.  38),  713  (Introd.  38). 
2  Walch,  702-3.  »  Also,  Walch,  684-5. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  I07 

the  "  carnality  "  of  the  body  would  be  a  false  one,  will,  moreover, 
very  soon  become  still  more  manifest. 

The  Syjigranii/ia  agrees  again  with  Luther  in  its  reply  to  the 
question,  whether  Christ  does  not  then  remain  in  heaven.  He 
remains,  it  declares,  in  heaven,  although  He  is  at  the  same  time, 
by  virtue  of  His  command  and  Word,  distributed  among  His 
followers  on  earth.  He  is  ascended  to  heaven  and  is  evei-ywhere, 
in  such  a  sense  that  He  is  also,  as  He  Himself  says,  with  us  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.  He  comes  to  us,  and  yet  remains  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  /.  e.,  "  in  all  places  in  heaven  and  on  earth." 
The  Holy  Spirit,  also,  is  in  the  saints  below,  and,  united  with 
Christ,  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  Why  should  it  then  be 
thought  a  strange  assertion  that  the  deified  body  of  Christ  like- 
wise comes  through  the  Word  into  the  bread,  and  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  remains  at  the  right  hand  of  God?  It  will  be  observed 
that  the  body  is  here  thought  of  as  in  its  present  glorified  state. 
Attention  is  also  distinctly  directed  to  the  difference  between  the 
presence  of  the  Diwne  in  Word  and  sacrament  and  the  general 
omnipresence  of  God  and  Christ,  in  an  earlier  passage,  in  which, 
when  speaking  of  the  presence  as  effected  through  the  Word,  it  is 
said  :  "  We  speak  not  of  the  presence  according  to  which  God  is 
in  all  things."  It  is  evidently  the  purpose  here  to  make  the  same 
discrimination  in  reference  to  which  Luther  afterwards  more 
definitely  declared  :  The  presence  through  the  Word  is  that  by 
virtue  of  which  God  is  not  only  objectively  present,  but  also  wishes 
Himself  to  be  actually  apprehended  by  faith  and  taken  up  into 
the  individual.* 

The  significance  of  the  sacrament,  finally,  in  so  far  as  the  com- 
munion of  saints  is  presented  in  it,  is  represented  in  the  way  in 
which  Luther  understood  it,  /.  e. :  Not  only  for  the  strengthening 
of  faith,  but  also  as  a  sign  of  unity,  has  the  Lord  ordained  that  it 
be  distributed  to  the  Church.  The  "  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  "  is  to  be  understood  of  this  distribution  to  the  community 
of  believers  (cf.  Luther's  utterances  above  cited).  Like  Luther, 
too,  the  Syngramma  contends  against  the  idea,  that  by  the  body 
itself  we  are  to  understand  the  congregation.  Like  him,  it 
appeals,  in  refutation  of  such  a  theory,  to  the  fact  that  this  body 
is  "  given  for  us,"     In   the  opposition  to  this  idea,  especially, 

1  Walch,  701-2,  717,  698, 


Io8  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

appears  to  lie  the  explanation  of  the  ardor  with  which  the  treatise 
everywhere  seeks  to  hold  to  the  true  bodily  nature,  or  carnality, 
of  the  body.' 

It  has  been  necessary  for  us  to  thus  fully  present  the  thoughts 
of  this  publication,  prepared  by  other  hands  than  Luther's,  in 
order  to  comprehend  and  rightly  estimate  the  attitude  which  he 
assumed  toward  it. 

He  not  only  allowed  it  to  be  presented  to  the  world  with  a 
commendatory  preface  from  his  hand,  but  he  constantly  in  his 
letters  expressed  his  approval  of  it,  as  an  excellent  defence  of  the 
pure  faith  touching  the  sacrament.  He  writes  :  "  It  is  wonderful 
how  the  little  book  pleases  (me)."  He  declares,  in  the  first 
preface,  that  the  Syngramma  pleases  him  so  well  that  he  would 
be  willing  to  translate  it  into  German  himself.  The  second 
preface  says  :  "  This  excellent  little  book  I  like  the  better  the 
longer  I  know  it,  because  I  know  how  they  are  assailing  it,  and 
yet  accomplishing  nothing  by  their  assaults ;  for  it  is  truth,  and 
puts  the  lies  to  shame."  ^ 

Yet  we  know  how  far  the  contents  of  the  book  varied  from  his 
own  theory — that  it  could,  despite  the  praise  bestowed  upon  it, 
by  no  means  be  said  of  all  the  statements  which  it  contained, 
that  he  adopted  them  as  expressing  his  own  views.^  It  is  incon- 
ceivable also,  that  he,  while  bestowing  so  much  attention  upon  it, 
should  not  himself  have  become  aware  of  the  variations  referred 
to.  We  cannot,  therefore,  but  regard  it  as  significant  that  he 
sliould,  in  all  his  references  to  it  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge, 
have  ignored  these  differences,  to  rejoice  only  in  the  valuable  aid 
of  men  like-minded  in  the  struggle  against  the  common  foes. 
The  decisive  consideration,  however,  in  awakening  this  sense  of 
fellowship  with  them,  was  beyond  doubt  the  zeal  with  which  they 
maintained  the  character  of  the  sacrament  as  a  divine,  objective, 
real  gift  of  grace,  as  over  against  which  the  part  of  the  individual 
participating  is  but  a  receptive  faith.  It  has  been  very  justly 
remarked,  that  Luther  had  here  to  deal  with  a  form  of  doctrinal 
conception  with  which,  among  all  the  theories  of  the  age  of  the 
Reformation,  that  of  Calvin  was  most  nearly  related.     Yet,  when 

iWalcb,  702. 

^Briefe,   111,93,95,98,   202.      Erl.   Ed.,  Ixv,  iSo,  1S6. 

^Vid.  Luther  himself,  Briefe,  ill,  202. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURG.  IO9 

this  has  been  said,  it  must  be  at  once  further  remarked,  that  the 
bodily  participation,  for  which  the  Syngramma  leaves  no  room, 
is  yet  not  in  express  terms  rejected  by  it — that  the  question  which 
was  to  lead  to  division  even  among  the  common  opponents  of 
Zwingli  and  Qicolampadius  was  here,  as  yet,  hidden  from  view  in 
the  imperfect  analysis  of  the  subject. 

2.  Further  Controversial  Writings  Preceding  the  Conciliatory 
Negotiations  zvith  Bncer. 

Upon  the  two  prefaces  to  the  Syngramma  followed,  shortly 
afterward,  A.  D.  1526,  the  first  independent  publication  of  Luther 
against  the  doctrine  there  controverted,  namely  the 

a.    DISSERTATION,  OF  THE    SACRAMENT    OF  THE    BODY    AND    BLOOD    OF 

CHRIST,  AGAINST  THE  FANATICAL  SPIRITS  {Sermo?i  von  dem  Sac- 
Tamcnt  des  Leibes  iiiid  Bhttcs  Chris ti  wider  die  Schwarmgeister^) . 

OBJECT    TO    BE    GRASPED    BY    FAITH OBJECTIONS  :     BODILY    PRESENCE 

INCONGRUOUS  AND    UNNECESSARY BENEFITS  OF  SACRAMENT  :    PAR- 
TICULAR, MEMORIAL,  PROMOTIVE    OF    BROTHERLY    LOVE. 

He  opens  the  discussion  with  the  statement,  that  there  are  two 
principal  things  which  must  be  considered  in  regard  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  first  is  the  Object  {objectitm) 
of  Faith,  i.  e.,  "  the  work,  or  thing,  which  we  believe,  or  to 
which  we  are  to  cling  " — the  sacrament  in  and  <of  itself,  as  it  is 
externally  presented  to  us — the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood 
as  an  object  of  faith.  The  other  is  Faith  itself,  the  proper  atti- 
tude of  the  heart  toward  the  sacrament,  or,  in  generrJ,  the  proper 
use  of  it.  Of  the  former,  he  says  that  he  has  hitherto  not 
preached  much,  but  rather  of  the  latter  alone.  This  he  even  now 
calls  "  the  best."  But,  inasmuch  as  the  former  is  now  assailed 
by  many,  he  feels  compelled  to  say  something  also  about  it. 
Thus  he  has  himself,  it  will  be  seen,  noted  the  modification  which 
had  occurred  in  his  presentation  of  doctrine — not  now,  indeed, 
for  the  first  time,  but  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  sacramental 
controversy  invoked  by  Carlstadt.  That  he  had  hitherto  preached 
only  of  the  second  aspect  of  the  doctrine  was,  indeed,  an 
extravagant  statement ;  but  it  reveals  to  us  clearly  his  own  con- 


no  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

sciousness  of  having  never  made  the  first  aspect  a  special  subject 
in  his  preaching.  On  the  other  hand,  he  evidently  does  not  now 
entertain  the  slightest  suspicion  that  his  doctrine,  or  view,  upon 
the  former  aspect  of  the  subject  may  have  undergone  any  material 
change. 

In  the  first  preface  to  the  Syngramma,  Luther  had  indicated 
"  two  arguments  of  error  "  among  the  Sacramentarians  in  regard 
to  the  object  of  faith  in  connection  with  the  Lord's  Supper:  i. 
It  seems  to  reason  an  almost  unbecoming  thing:  2,  It  is  unneces- 
sary,  i.  e.,  that  Christ's  body  and  blood  should  be  in  the  bread 
and  wine.  Or,  to  state  the  arguments  briefly,  they  are:  i.  Ab- 
surdity. 2.  No  necessity.  Thus  the  document  before  us,  under- 
taking to  speak  of  the  "  objectum  fidei"  treats  these  two  points 
consecutively. 

It  is  claimed  by  the  opponents,  that  the  presence  of  the  body  of 
Christ  in  the  bread  "  is  not  suitable  "  {sollte  sich  nicht  schickcn). 
It  is  said  to  be  a  miracle  contradicting  the  senses,  that  the  one 
body  of  Christ  should  be  thus  present  at  a  hundred  thousand 
places.  But  Luther  finds  equally  great  miracles,  not  only  in  the 
incarnation  of  God,  but  even  in  ordinary  creature  life.  There' 
is,  for  instance,  the  one  soul  in  the  whole  body  and  in  the 
smallest  member  of  the  body,  so  that  if  we  pierce  the  latter,  the 
whole  soul  is  affected  and  the  whole  man  shudders.  Out  of  one 
grain  grows  the  stalk  with  so  many  grains.  One  weak,  perishable 
human  voice  is  caught,  whole  and  undivided,  by  each  one  of  a 
thousand  ears  upon  which  it  falls.  If  our  spoken  word  can  thus 
distribute  itself,  how  much  more  can  not  Christ  do  the  same  with 
His  glorified  body?  From  this  comparison,  Luther  proceeds  to 
observe  further,  that  the  one  Christ  Himself — precisely  with  His 
bodily  voice,  /.  e.,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel — is  brought  into 
so  many  hearts  (cf.  the  Syngramma).  Here,  we  must  say,  we 
have  the  true  Christ.  The  heart  feels  His  presence,  through  the 
experience  of  faith,  without  our  knowing  how  it  is  effected.  He 
sits  at  once  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  also  in  the 
believing  heart ;  and  the  believing  heart  itself  is  thus  also  truly 
in  heaven,  being  where  He  is.  Should  it  then  be  astonishing,  he 
asks,  that  Christ  should  bring  Himself  into  the  bread  and  into  the 
wine?  Is  not  the  heart  much  more  subtile  than  the  bread?  The 
pregnancy  of  the  Virgin  Mary  is  also  adduced  in  illustration. 
This  occurred  through  the  words  which  the  angel  spoke  to  her, 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  Ill 

and  which  she  apprehended  and  beheved.  With  these,  Christ 
came,  not  only  into  her  heart,  but  also  into  her  body,  the  power 
coming  in  this  case  through  the  Word.  Thus  also  in  the  sacra- 
ment :  as  soon  as  Christ  says,  "  This  is  my  body,"  His  body  is 
present  through  the  Word  and  through  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  words  bring  with  them  to  the  bread  that  of  which 
they  speak  (cf.  Syngratnma).  Luther  then,  at  length,  as  in  his 
discussion  with  Carlstadt,  takes  up  the  passage,  Eph.  i.  20  sqq., 
adding  now  to  it  also  Eph.  iv.  7  sq.  According  to  these  declara- 
tions, he  says,  Christ  is  placed  atove  all  creatures  and  fills  all 
things.  This  he  refers  not  only  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but,  in 
precisely  the  same  way,  to  the  humanity  inseparable  from  the 
divinity ;  and  this  involves  for  him  the  assurance  that  Cluist  is 
also  according  to  His  humanity  a  Lord  of  all  things,  that  He  has 
all  things  in  His  hand,  that  He  is  everywhere  present.  He  finds 
no  further  signification  than  this  in  the  state  of  Christ  as  ascended 
to  heaven,  and  His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  "  This  is 
what  it  means,  that  He  is  above  all  created  things,  and  in  and 
beyond  all  created  things."  It  is  just  this  truth  of  which  the 
bodily,  visible  ascension  of  the  Lord  is  to  be  an  attestation.  The 
appearance  to  the  eye  of  Stephen  of  Christ  standing  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  is  also  again  cited,  as  in  the  treatise  againt  Carl- 
stadt ;  and  he  now  declares,  further,  that  Stephen  did  not  need 
to  lift  his  eyes  high  to  see  Christ,  for  He  is  about  us,  and  in  us, 
and  at  all  places. 

Thus  positively  asserted  and  distinctly  marked  do  we  now  find 
in  Luther  this  view  of  the  mode  of  existence  of  the  God-man, 
which  we  have  already  seen  him,  in  his  writings  against  Carlstadt, 
utilize  in  brief  form  for  the  defence  of  the  sacramental  presence 
of  the  glorified  body,  and  which  is  fully  developed,  as  the  basis 
of  that  doctrine,  in  the  controversial  writings  immediately  follow- 
ing. Yet  this  presence  is  not  an  immediate  inference  from  the 
ubiquity  of  Christ.  The  essential  peculiarity  of  this  sacramental 
presence  consists  in  the  fact,  that  Christ  is  here  present  according 
to  His  humanity,  not  only  in  the  sense  in  which  He  is  present 
everywhere,  but  that  He  may  here  be  with  certainty  found  and 
laid  hold  of  by  us ;  for  although  He  is  also  present  everywhere 
else.  He  yet  does  not  wish  us  to  "  grope  about  everywhere  after 
Him."  And  this  willingness  to  be  found,  on  the  part  of  Christ, 
is  made  dependent  upon  His  Word.     We  do  not  draw  Him  down 


112  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

from  heaven  by  His  words  which  we  speak  at  the  celebration  of 
the  Supper ;  but  they  are  given  to  us  as  an  assurance  that  we 
know  certainly  how  and  where  to  find  Him.  Thus  He  does  not 
at  all  wish  me  to  look  for  Him  anywhere  without  the  Word, 
although  He  is  certainly  everywhere  in  all  created  things,  even  in 
stone,  fire  and  water.  Otherwise,  I  tempt  God,  and  practice 
idolatry.  But  still  more  definitely  is  the  presence  in  the  sacra- 
ment now  at  once  defined,  and  with  this  we  are  brought  to  face 
again  the  difference  between  his  teaching  and  that  of  the  Svn- 
granuna.  It  is  now  more  distinctly  His  body  and  blood  which 
Christ  "  connects  {anbi7jdef)  with  the  Word  in  bread  and  wine;" 
and  He  connects  it  in  such  a  way  that  we  are  to  receive  it  here 
also  bodily.  This  means,  further,  for  Luther,  as  we  already  know, 
tiiat  the  body  and  blood  enter  with  the  bread  and  wine  into  the 
bodies  of  all,  even  the  unworthy  communicants,  in  the  reception 
of  this  bread  and  wine. 

Luther  makes  very  short  work  with  the  second  argument  of  the 
opponents,  /.  c,  that  the  presence  in  the  Supper  "  is  not  neces- 
sary," declaring  bluntly  that  they  therein  attempt  to  vanquish  God 
and  Christ.  If  God  says  it  is  necessary,  all  creatures  must  keep 
silent.  He  challenges  them  to  explain  why  it  was  necessary  for 
God,  who  has  sin,  death  and  the  devil  in  His  power,  to  send  His 
Son,  and  suffer  Him  to  die  for  our  deliverance ;  or  why  God 
feeds  us  with  bread,  when  He  could  do  eo  with  His  bare  Word, 
etc.  Although  he  discourages  all  attempts  to  establish  a  necessity 
in  this  case,  he  yet,  in  the  second  part  of  the  work,  presents  a 
number  of  important  points  in  illustration  of  the  benefits  of  this 
presence  to  us. 

For  example,  after  having,  first  of  all,  secured  due  recognition 
for  the  Object  of  Faith,  or,  to  use  his  own  expression,  "  preserved 
the  treasure,  and  not  suffered  the  kernel  to  be  extracted  from 
the  shell  " — he  is  now  ready  to  preach  again  upon  the  other 
feature  of  the  doctrine,  /.  e.,  upon  the  proper  use  and  reception 
of  the  sacrament.  He  thus  opposes,  here  as  heretofore,  as  well 
the  old  error  which  makes  a  meritorious  work  out  of  the  sacra- 
ment, as,  especially,  the  new  teachers  of  error,  according  to  whom 
it  is  a  bare  badge,  by  which  Christians  may  be  recognized.  He 
insists  again  upon  the  words  :  "  My  body,  -which  is  given  fo7- you  '^ 
He  locates  the  right  use  of  the  sacrament  in  the  faith — not  only 
that  Christ  is  present  with  body  and  blood,  but  that  He  is  here 


AFTER    KETIREMLNX    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  II3 

bestowed  upon  me,  and  bestowed,  moreover,  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  wliich  the  death  of  Christ  has  secured  for  us.  And  at 
this  point  we  are  brought  in  the  Sermon  to  yet  more  definite 
utterances  concerning  the  siguificanee  which  the  sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  has  fo7-  our  salvation.  The  entire 
stress  seems  at  first  to  be  here  laid  upon  the  body  itself  which  is 
received  in  the  sacrament.  This  is  said  to  be  bestowed  upon  us 
for  (s///-)  forgiveness.  Even,  says  Luther,  if  the  words,  "  given 
for  you,"  did  not  stand  there,  as  they  are  actually  lacking  in 
Paul's  account,  yet  thou  hast  still  the  body  which  died  for  thy 
sins.  "  But  when  Christ  is  bestowed  upon  thee,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  also  bestowed,  and  everything  which  has  been  secured 
through  the  (objective)  treasure."  Nevertheless-,  if  we  look  more 
closely,  we  will  obsei"ve  that  the  Word  even  here  still  retains  the 
place  hitherto  accorded  to  it  by  Luther,  not  only  in  that  it  is 
according  to  this  Word,  and  by  virtue  of  it  (as  we  have  seen 
above),  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  present,  but,  espe- 
cially, in  that  it  is  the  Word  itself  in  which,  according  to  the 
institution  of  the  sacrament,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  directly 
offered  to  us.  Thus  Luther  declares,  in  the  process  of  the  argu- 
ment, that,  as  it  is  particularly  needful  for  a  Christian  to  know, 
first  of  all,  that  Christ  has  given  His  flesh  to  the  agony  upon  the 
cross  in  order  that  it  might  be  a  "  treasure  "  for  us  and  bring  us 
help  in  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  so  this  principal  thing  is  here 
presented  to  us  also  ifi  the  zvords.  He  adds  also  :  As  a  token 
and  guarantee  there  is  given  to  us  here  //?  addition  His  body  and 
blood  for  bodily  reception.  In  accordance  with  this,  evidently, 
must  we  interpret  the  above  declaration,  that  the  body  and  blood 
are  here  given  to  us  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  — and  in  accord- 
ance with  this,  likewise,  mu^t  we  conceive  as  mediated  the 
forgiveness  deduced  from  the  partaking  of  the  body.  The  sac- 
rament thus,  for  Luther,,  takes  its  place  by  the  side  of  the  general 
preaching  of  the  forgiveness  secured  by  the  death  of  Christ : 
"  Christ  has  accomplished  it  once  upon  the  cross,  but  allows  it 
to  be  distributed  daily  to»  us.  anew  through  preaching."  But  he 
now,  with  emphasis,  presents-  it  as  the  peculiarity  of  the  sacra- 
mental distribution,  that,  although  the  same  thing  is  found  in 
preaching  as  in  the  sacrament,  yet  there  is  in  the  latter  case  this 
advantage,  /.  e.,  that  it  is  directed  to  certain  persons.  In  public 
preaching  it  is  given  to  no  one  in  particular,  but  he  may  take  it 


I  1 4  THE    'I'HEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

who  will.  But  in  the  sacrament,  it  is  appropriated  to  each  single 
person.  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  bestowed  upon  every 
one,  in  order  that  he  may  have  the  forgiveness  secured  by  the 
death  of  Christ  and  preached  in  the  congregation.  The  pecu- 
liarity of  the  sacrament  is,  therefore,  the  definite  individual  appli- 
cation of  the  forgiveness  distributed  through  the  Word — an 
application,  moreover  (wherein  it  differs  from  that  in  confession 
and  private  absolution),  in  which,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  the 
body  and  blood  are  also  given  to  each — given  as  a  "  token  and 
guarantee  "  for  that  which  lies  already  in  the  Word — as  the 
strongest  possible  certification  to  faith,  which  must  receive  the 
latter,  first  of  all,  from  the  Word.' 

Whilst  firmly  maintaining  this  as  the  fundamental  significance 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Ser7H07i  yet  recognizes  the  latter  also 
as  a  memorial  and  proclamatiori  of  the  death  of  Christ.  "  Herein 
lies  the  conclusion  of  the  matter :  first,  that  we  here  take  to 
ourselves,  as  a  gift,  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  secondly,  that  we 
then  preach  and  proclaim  the  same." 

Luther  finally  names  again,  and  that  as  the  "  fruit  of  the  sacra- 
ment," Love,  in  view  of  which  the  ancient  Fathers  described  it 
as  co?Hininiio,  or  fellowship  (^Gemeinschaft^ .  This  feature  is  pre- 
sented to  us,  first  in  the  example  of  love  given  by  Christ  in  His 
death,  and  then  in  the  figure,  or  sign,  of  the  bread  composed  of 
many  grains  and  the  wine  made  from  many  grapes. 

Thus,  says  he,  every  believer  may  apprehend  in  the  sacrament 
the  entire  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  namely,  what  the  Chris- 
tian should  believe,  /.  e.,  the  delivering  up  of  Christ  for  the  for- 
giveness of  our  sins,  and  what  the  Christian  should  do  by  faith. 

The  two  "  arguments  "  against  which  Luther  contended  in 
this  Sermon,  he  regarded,  from  the  very  first,  as  nothing  more 
than  presumptuous  suggestions  of  reason,  encroaching  upon  a 
sphere  that  does  not  belong  to  it.  But  his  opponents  made 
earnest  attempts  to  furnish  the  scriptural  proof  of  their  positions 
which  he  demanded.  A  reply  of  the  Reformer,  devoted  mainly 
to  the  supposed  arguments  from  this  quarter,  is  furnished  in  a 
publication  of  A.  D.  1527,  to  which  we  now  turn  our  attention. 

'Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  345,  348,  392  sq.     Supra,  p.  81  sq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  II5 

"  THAT  THESE  WORDS    OF    CHRIST  :    THIS    IS    MY    BODY,  ETC.,  STILL 
STAND    SECURE,    AGAINST    THE   FANATICAL    SPIRITS."        {DclSS    diese 

Woi'te  Christi,  das  ist  me  in  Leib,  u.  s.  w.,  noch  feststehen,  wider 
die  Scliwarmgeister.y 


RIGHT   HAND  OF  GOD    EVERYWHERE CHRIST  IN  THE    BREAD CHRIST 

TO    BE    APPREHENDED    WHERE    REVEALED JOHN  V.  63   NOT   APPLI- 
CABLE—  SPIRITUAL     AND     BODILY  .EATING MOUTH     AND     HEART 

PATRISTIC    TESTIMONY SACRAMENTARIAN    CELEBRATIONS. 

He  here  begins  with  the  words  of  institution,  as  given  by 
Matthew  and  .Mark.  He  refutes,  as  he  had  before  briefly  done  in 
the  Strassburg  letter,  the  argument  for  the  figurative  interpretation 
based  upon  such  passages  as  i  Cor.  x.  4  ;  Ex.  xii.  1 1  ;  John  xv.  i . 
But,  granting  that  the  exegetical  support  of  the  views  of  his  oppo- 
nents should  prove  untenable,  is  not  the  teaching  of  other  por- 
tions of  Sciipture,  and  are  not  the  i-emaining  articles  of  the 
Christian  faith,  opposed  to  the  view,  that  Christ's  body  and 
blood  are  actually  in  bread  and  wine  ?  Thus  it  was  maintained 
by  the  opponents.  Again  there  were  two  principal  arguments 
which  Luther  had  to  meet,  namely,  (i)  The  two  statements,  /.  e., 
that  Christ,  as  the  Scriptures  and  faith  declare,  is  in  heaven,  and 
that  His  body  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper ;  and  (2)  That,  as,  accord- 
ing to  John  vi.  63,  "  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,"  Christ  can 
therefore  not  give  "us  His  flesh  to  eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Luther  now  proposes  to  overturn  both  these  "  comer-stones  " 
of  the  "  fanatical  spirits,"  without  paying  any  attention  to  the 
"  many  other  loose  arguments,"  which  they  are  accustomed  to 
produce. 

The  first  point  brings  us  at  once  back  again  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Person  of  Christ,  which  the  above  Sermon  had  already 
advanced  against  the  first  argimient  of  the  Sacramentarians 
there  treated  of.  We  find  now  a  full  development  of  the  doc- 
trine touching  the  "Right  Hand  of  God,"  or  the  omnipresence 
of  God  and  Christ.  The  present  document  and  that  which 
follows  it.  Grosses  Bekenntniss  vom  Abendmahl  Christi,  afford  us 
the  chief  discussions  of  Luther  upon  the  subject.  These  are,  as 
no  opponent  even  should  attempt  to  deny,  magnificent  and  pro- 

'Erl.  Ed.,  XXX.  14-151. 


Il6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

found  portraitures  of  the  divine  existence  and  activity,  full  of 
spirit  and  life.  They  display  the  most  sincerely  pious  and 
Christian  endeavor  to  apprehend  as  deeply  as  possible  the  unity 
into  which  the  divine  entered  with  the  human  in  the  person  of 
the  Redeemer.  It  is  another  question,  whether  the  bold  flight 
of  ideas  has  been  sufficiently  regulated  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements  of  a  sharp  definition  and  distinction  of  the  various 
elements  in  that  which  constitutes  the  substantial  content  of  the 
religious  and  Christian  consciousness. 

It  is,  according  to  Luther,  a  childish  notion,  that  there  is  a 
golden  throne  in  heaven,  upon  which  Christ  sits  beside  the 
Father.  The  Scriptures  do  not  bind  the  right  hand  of  God  to 
any  place.  His  right  hand  is  His  almighty  power,  which  cannot 
be  anywhere — is  enclosed  in  no  single  place — and  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  is  essentially  present  in  all  places,  even  in  the  smallest  leaf 
upon  the  tree,  even  as  He  by  this  power  creates,  brings  to  pass, 
and  upholds  all  things.  But  if  He  creates  and  upholds  all 
things,  He  must  also  Himself  he  where  they  are  (Isa.  Ixvi.  i  ; 
Acts  xvii.  27  sq. ;  Rom.  xi.  36,  etc.).  His  majesty  may  be 
present,  and  that  really  {lucscntUch),  in,  with  and  upon  a  grain 
of  corn  and  through  a  grain  of  corn,  within  and  without.  And 
although  it  is  one  majesty,  yet  it  can  be  entire  and  complete 
separately  in  the  whole  multitude  of  grains,  without  being  itself 
divided.  He  is  Himself  above  body,  spirit,  and  everything  of 
which  man  can  conceive ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time.  His  own 
essence  (being)  is,  entire  and  complete,  separately  in  every 
creature.  That,  with  the  power  of  God,  also  "  His  divine  nature 
i^Weseii),  or  right  hand,  is  everywhere,"  Luther  proves,  not  only 
from  the  above  passages  of  Scripture,  but  also  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  /.  e.,  from  the  original  and  unchangeable 
unity  which  exists  in  the  Godhead.  Since  outside  of  created 
things  there  is  nothing  but  "  the  one,  simple  Godhead,"  the 
power  and  hand  of  God  were  undoubtedly  before  the  creation 
His  nature  itself ;  and,  after  the  creation,  they  would  certainly 
not  have  become  anything  else.  God's  power,  arm,  hand, 
nature,  countenance,  spirit,  wisdom,  etc.,  are  all,  according  to 
Luther,  one  and  the  same  thing.  Even  the  Word  of  God  is  for 
him  also  the  same  as  His  power,  since  it  was  by  His  Word  that 
God  made  all  things.  The  power  of  God  is  thus  not  a  kind  of 
axe,  with  which  He  works,  but  it  is  He  Himself.     Inasmuch  as 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  II7 

the  power  and  Spirit  of  God  are  present  in  all  things  through 
and  through,  so  must  also  His  right  hand,  His  essential  nature, 
and  His  majesty  be  everywhere.  God  Himself  must  be  at  hand, 
if  He  is  to  do  anything. 

But  all  these  utterances  concerning  God  are  already  accom- 
panied, in  the  mind  of  Luther,  with  a  direct  reference  to  Christ. 
If  God  is  not  bound  to  one  place  upon  a  golden  throne  in 
heaven,  neither  can  Christ  be  so  confined ;  for  out  of  Christ 
there  is  no  God,  and  where  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Godhead  entire 
and  complete  (Col.  ii.  9;  John  xiv.  9,  10).  Again,  our  very 
faith  and  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  according  to  which  the 
Godhead  dwells  bodily,  entire  and  complete,  in  Christ,  is  an 
evidence  for  the  fundamental  doctrine,  that  the  Godhead  is,  in 
general,  not  bound  to  any  place.  But  there  is,  moreover,  in 
Christ  another  presence  of  God,  of  a  far  greater  and  loftier  kind 
than  in  any  creature  whatsoever.  God  not  only  is  in  Him,  but 
dwells  in  Him,  so  that  God  and  man  become  one  person. 
Hence,  we  can  say  of  created  things  only,  "  Here  is  God,"  and 
not,  "  This  is  God  "  ;  but  Christ  is  God  Himself. 

We  must,  first  of  all,  in  Luther's  reasoning  upon  this  subject, 
note  carefully  such  propositions  as  have  in  view  the  Godhead 
itself,  which  is  in  Christ.  In  this  sense,  he  declares  that  it  was 
necessary  for  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  inasmuch  as  He  was  to  be 
conceived  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  to  be  already  beforehand  essen- 
tially and  personally  in  the  body  of  the  Virgin  and  there  assume 
humanity,  since  the  Godhead  is  immovable  and  cannot  pass  from 
one  place  to  another.  Christ  was  beforehand  already  in  the  body 
of  the  Virgin,  just  as  everywhere  in  all  places,  according  to  divine 
nature,  mode  and  power.  It  is  evident  that  this  is  not  here  said 
of  the  God-man,  or  of  the  incarnate  Son,  since  the  question 
under  consideration  is  now  how  He  became  man.  Yet,  with  this, 
it  appears  to  have  been  also  at  once  settled  for  Luther,  that  after 
the  incarnation,  the  same  which  could  be  said  of  the  presence  of 
the  Son  of  God  might  also  be  said  of  the  entire  indivisible  person 
of  the  Incarnate  One.  And  Luther's  glance  is  here  from  the 
very  beginning,  and  throughout  the  entire  course  of  the  discussion 
— just  as  in  his  appeal  to  Eph.  ii.  23  when  arguing  against  Carl- 
stadt,  fixed  upon  the  Christ  now  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of 
God,  who  in  the  Lord's  Supper  distributes  His  body  and  blood. 
From  the  very  fact  of  Christ's  being  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 


I  1 8  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER, 

upon  which  the  opponents  rested  their  denial  of  the  presence  of 
the  body,  that  presence  is  now  deduced  :  Where  the  right  hand 
of  God  is,  there  must  be  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  the 
right  hand  of  God  is,  according  to  the  evidence  presented,  in  all 
places.  Yet  it  is  by  no  means  the  idea  of  Luther,  that  it  is  only 
since  Christ's  entrance  through  the  ascension  upon  His  present 
state  of  exaltation,  that  His  human  nature  has  attained  to  that 
fellowship  with  the  divine  by  virtue  of  which  such  a  presence  is 
to  be  attributed  to  His  body.  Upon  the  contrary,  although  in 
his  earlier  writings  Luther  had,  indeed,  never  definitely  indi- 
cated the  point  of  time  since  which  the  God-man  has  been  filling 
all  things,  as  described  in  Eph.  i.  23,  yet  there  can  now,  from  the 
use  made  of  John  iii.  13,  be  no  longer  any  doubt  that  he  means 
all  that  is  said  of  this  presence  to  be  considered  as  applicable,  as 
well,  to  the  time  of  Christ's  earthly  life.  He  declares  that  this 
latter  announcement  evidently  relates  to  the  Son  of  man  as  such, 
not  to  Christ  in  His  divinity.  Christ  thereby  ("  the  Son  of  man, 
who  is  in  heaven  ")  indicates  that  His  body  is  at  the  same  time 
in  heaven  and  on  earth — yea,  in  all  places.  By  His  glorification 
He  did  not  become  another  person ;  but  as  He  was  before,  so 
He  now  remains,  everywhere  present.  Even  in  the  Church 
Postils,  we  find  in  the  Sermon  upon  yohn  Hi.  i-ij,  under  the 
13th  verse,  only  the  brief  comment :  "  The  Son  of  man  came  to 
the  earth,  and  yet  remained  in  heaven,  and  again  went  up  to 
heaven,  i.  e.,  He  became  a  Lord  over  heaven  and  earth  and  all 
that  in  them  is."  '  This  scriptural  utterance  always  remains  for 
him  a  leading  proof-passage  for  the  propositions  underlying  his 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  \n  this  sense,  and  with  this 
application,  he  was  accustomed  to  interpret  the  statement  when- 
ever he  was  led  to  quote  it  in  his  sermons  or  his  exegesis.  In 
the  new  and  amended  edition  of  the  Church  Postils,  issued  in 
1543,  instead  of  the  above  sermon  appears  another  which  pre- 
sents the  same  interpretation.'  The  present  document,  how- 
ever, enters  no  further  into  the  consideration  of  the  question 
concerning  the  state  of  Christ  when  on  earth.  It  treats  of 
Christology  in  detail  just  in  so  far  as  was  necessary  in  order  to 
establish  the  doctrine  of  the  presence  of  the  body  of  the  exalted 
Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 

»  Er1.    Ed.,  xii,  390.  2Ibid.,423. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 19 

If  we,  then,  scrutinize  more  closely  Luther's  conception  of  this 
presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  shall  observe  that,  for  him,  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  upon  all  occasions  in  all  places. 
Even  had  Christ,  at  the  institution  of  the  Supper,  not  employed 
the  words,  "  This  is  my  body,"  yet  the  words,  "  Christ  sitteth  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,"  would  themselves  still  compel  us  to  con- 
clude that  His  body  is  there  as  well  as  everywhere  else.  There 
is  hence  no  need  of  any  transubstantiation.  The  body  of  Christ 
can  be  there  without  it,  just  as  the  right  hand  of  God,  which  is 
in  all  things,  must  not,  on  that  account,  be  transformed  into  all 
things.  The  presence  of  the  body  in  the  bread  must  be  possible, 
just  as  well  as  the  presence  of  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  of  God 
Himself,  in  all  created  things.  If  God  has  found  a  way  in  which 
His  nature  can  be  in  them  all,  entire  and  complete,  and  in  every 
creature  separately,  and  yet  be  surrounded  and  embraced  by 
none,  w'hy  should  He  "  not  also  know  a  way  in  which  His  body 
might  also  be,  entire  and  complete,  at  many  places  at  once,  and 
it  yet  be  not  proper  to  say  of  any  one  of  these  places,  '  He  is 
here?'  "  How  shall  we,  miserable  sons  of  men,  undertake  to 
judge  Him  according  to  our  notions? 

Luther  here,  as  we  observe,  entertains  no  doubt  arising  from 
the  distinction  between  a  spiritual  nature,  such  as  God  in  Him- 
self possesses  purely  and  perfectly,  and  the  form  of  existence 
characterizing  a  body,  however  intimately  connected  with  God 
the  latter  may  be.  It  is  enough  for  him  that  this  body  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  Scriptures,  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  He  further 
suggests  :  Body  has,  moreover,  it  is  true,  a  resemblance  to  body, 
and  they  may  fitly  be  associated  with  one  another — as  bread  and 
wine  are  a  body,  and  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  a  body.  More  diffi- 
cult, therefore,  for  reason  to  understand  than  the  presence  of  this 
body  in  the  body  of  the  bread,  must  appear  the  presence  in  all 
created  things  of  the  God  who  is  exalted  above  body  and  spirit. 
Then  follow  the  propositions  noted  above  :  If  God  can  yet  find  a 
way  to  be  in  all  these  created  things,  how  much  more  will  He 
know  the  way  for  His  body  to  be  thus  present.  In  the  process 
of  the  argument,  it  is  further  claimed  that,  at  all  events,  there  are 
for  God  more  ways  in  which  one  thing  can  be  in  another  than 
the  gross,  material  way  in  which  wine  is  held  in  a  vessel.  Levi, 
for  example,  was  in  the  loins  of  Abraham.  We  say  of  that  which 
we  see,  that  it  is  in  our  eye.     All  things  may  be  in  our  hearts,  etc. 


I20  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

It  seems  to  him  no  more  difficult  to  understand  that  one  body 
should  be  at  many  places  than  that  many  bodies  should  be  in 
one  place.  But  the  body  of  Christ  was,  in  passing  through  the 
sealed  stone  of  His  sepulchre,  for  example,  or  through  the  closed 
door,  in  one  and  the  same  place  with  that  through  which  He 
vanished.  This  leads  the  author  to  speak  again  of  the  presence 
everywhere.  The  disciples,  he  declares,  did  not  see  the  risen 
Lord  there  enter,  but  they  beheld  Him  as  one  who  had  been 
there  already  before  they  saw  Him,  but  who  now  revealed  Him- 
self in  their  midst.  In  a  similar  way,  also,  do  other  appearances 
of  God  and  iPhrist  indicate  that  they  both  are  not  far  from  us, 
but  near,  and  that  their  appearance  to  us  is  merely  a  rcvelaiion 
of  their  presence.     This  leads  again  to  the  citation  of  John  iii.  13. 

But,  in  connection  with  all  these  utterances  of  Luther  in  rela- 
tion to  the  bodily  presence,  we  must  bear  in  mind  his  caution  : 
"  Although  the  body  of  Christ  is  in  all  places,  yet  thou  canst  not 
therefore  at  once  lay  hold  upon  it — unless  He  binds  Himself  fast 
to  thee,  and  invites  thee  to  a  special  table  by  His  Word,  and 
Himself  points  out  to  thee  by  His  Word  the  bread,  where  (in 
which)  thou  shalt  eat  Him — which  He,  indeed,  does  in  the 
Lord's  Supper."  For  "  that  God  should  be  present  and  that  He 
should  be  present  to  thee,  are  two  different  things."  Thus  the 
right  hand  of  God  is  everywhere,  but  to  lay  hold  of  it  we  are 
directed  to  the  humanity  of  Christ ;  and  thus  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  because  it  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  is  likewise  also 
above  and  in  all  things — but  we  can  take  it  only  at  the  place  to 
which  the  Word  directs  us.  Wherever  Christ  has  not  thus  "  bound 
Himself  fast,"  our  experience  can  only  be  as  with  the  rays  of  the 
sun  :  although  they  are  so  near  to  us  and  are  so  sensibly  felt,  yet 
we  cannot,  with  all  our  grasping,  catch  them  and  store  them  in  a 
casket. 

Furthermore,  Luther  would  not  be  understood  as  having,  in 
what  he  has  said  as  to  Christ's  being  at  the  same  time  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  and  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  attempted  to  circum- 
scribe the  power  of  God,  as  though  God  had  not  also  more  ways 
than  that  here  indicated  for  keeping  a  body  in  many  places  at 
once.  "  For,"  says  he,  "  I  believe  His  words,  that  He  can  do 
more  than  all  the  angels  are  able  to  understand;  but  I  have 
pointed  out  one  of  these  ways,  in  order  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the 
Fanatics  and  to  justify  our  faith." 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURG.  121 

In  the  reply  of  Luther  to  the  second  point,  i.  e.,  that  drawn 
from  the  language  of  John  vi.  63,  we  must  note  especially  the 
more  definite  utterances  in  regard  to  the  conception  of  the  spir- 
itual and  the  bodily  eating  and  the  difference  between  the  two, 
as  also  in  regard  to  the  benefit  to  be  secured  from  the  bodily 
eating  as  such. 

As  compared  with  the  discussion  of  this  text  in  the  argument 
against  Carlstadt,  we  find  nothing  new  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  word  "flesh"  as  there  employed.  It  is  here  only  established 
with  more  care,  that  the  body  of  Christ  cannot  ba  meant  by  the 
term.  This  is  always  impossible  when,  as  here,  flesh  and  spirit 
are  opposed  to  one  another ;  for  the  body  and  flesh  of  Christ 
harmonize  very  well  with  the  spirit — yea,  He  is  bodily  the  dwel- 
ling-place of  the  Spirit.  It  is  the  old  Adam,  with  its  disposition, 
understanding,  will,  etc.,  that  is  called  flesh  in  contrast  with  spirit. 
Jesus  wished  to  say,  therefore,  in  this  passage,  that  the  under- 
standing of  His  disciples  was  a  carnal  one,  since  they  think  of  a 
bodily  eating  of  flesh,  just  as  when  it  is  eaten  with  the  teeth  and 
digested  in  the  body ;  and  that  all  His  words  were  spirit,  and 
hence  flesh  and  eating,  and  everything  of  which  He  spoke,  were 
also  spirit,  and  must  be  spiritually  understood  and  employed. 
Thus  there  follows  immediately  for  Luther  here,  from  the  "  spir- 
itual understanding  "  with  which  Jesus  wishes  His  words  to  be 
received,  the  spiritual  character  also  of  the  object  of  which  He 
speaks.  He  then  emphatically  announces  his  acceptance  of  the 
principle,  that  the  bodily  eating  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  which  is 
not  under  consideration  in  John  vi.,  but  which  is  involved  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  would,  indeed,  of  itself  alone,  be  of  no  benefit. 
He  is  willing  to  go  further  still,  and  declare  that  bodily  eating 
without  faith  is  poisonous  and  fatal.  But  he  inquires  how  it 
would  be  if  we  should  bodily  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ  in  such  a  way 
as  to  at  the  same  time  eat  it  spii-iturdly — that  is,  if  w^e  should  eat 
the  body  bodily  with  the  bread,  and  at  the  same  time  believe  with 
the  heart  that  it  is  the  body  given  for  us  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  which  even  the  opponents  .call  "  spiritual  eating."  "  Is 
there,"  says  he,  "a  spiritual  eating  here?  then  must  also  the 
bodily  eating  be  beneficial  on  account  of  the  spiritual  eating. 
The  mouth,  which  bodily  eats  the  flesh  of  Christ,  does  not,  in- 
deed, know  what  it  is  eating;  nor  would  the  eating,  of  itself,  ben- 
efit  the   mouth,  for  it  cannot  comprehend  the  words.     But  the 


122  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

heart  knows  well  what  the  mouth  is  eating,  for  it  comprehends 
the  words  and  eats  spiritually  that  which  the  mouth  eats  bodily. 
But  since  the  mouth  is  an  organ  ( Glicdmass)  of  the  heart,  it 
must  also  finally  live  to  eternity  on  account  of  the  heart,  which 
lives  forever  through  the  Word ;  for  the  mouth  here  also  eats 
bodily  the  same  eternal  food  which  the  heart  eats  spiritually 
with  it." 

But  the  adversaries,  says  Luther,  prattle  much  about  spiritual 
eating,  without  knowing  what  either  spiritual  or  bodily  eating  is. 
He  will,  therefore,  speak  further  on  the  subject,  for  the  sake  of 
those  who  are  in  need  of  the  instruction. 

The  question  is  not,  he  proceeds  to  say,  as  to  any  difference 
in  the  object  which  is  eaten.  The  flesh  of  Christ  is  always,  even 
when  it  is  spiritually  eaten,  true,  natural,  bodily  flesh.  The  object 
is  not  always  spiritual,  but  the  employment  of  it  ought  to  be  spir- 
itual {^i/sus  debet  esse  spiritualis).  Even  the  assertion  of  Luther, 
that  the  flesh  spoken  of  in  John  vi.  is  spirit,  does  not  mean  that 
it  ceases  to  be  (Christ's)  actual  body^  because  it  has  a  spiritual 
character  and  is  "  spiritual  flesh."  He  now  adduces  illustrations 
in  confirmation  of  his  theory.  Thus  Christ,  at  His  conception 
by  the  Virgin,  became  not  only  a  spiritual  being,  but  a  real  bodily 
man.  But  Mary  at  the  same  time,  together  with  this  bodily  con- 
ception, through  her  faith  in  the  word  of  the  angel,  received  and 
bore  Him  also  spiritually,  and  without  this  spiritual  conception 
she  would  never  have  conceived  Him  bodily.  God  might,  in- 
deed, even  without  her  knowledge,  have  formed  the  body  of 
Christ  within  her  body,  as  Eve  was  once  formed  from  Adam  ; 
but  she  would  then  not  have  been  the  mother  of  Christ,  as  Adam 
was  not  the  mother  of  Eve.  Thus,  also,  the  woman  with  the 
bloody  flux  touched  the  bodily  garment  of  Chiist,  but  at  the  same 
time  she  touched  Him  spiritually  by  the  faith  in  her  heart.  Thus 
Abraham  begat  Isaac  spiritually  by  his  faith  before  his  bodily 
generation,  and  received  the  power  of  bodily  generation  through 
the  Word  of  divine  promise.  Thus,  says  Luther,  everything  which 
our  body  does  externally,  is  spiritually  done,  if  the  Word  accom- 
panies it,  and  if  it  is  done  by  faith.  In  short,  everything  is  spir- 
itual which  is  done  in  us  or  through  us  by  the  Spirit  and  faith, 
whether  the  thing  in  question  be  itself  spiritual  or  bodily.  The 
Lord's  Supper  has  to  do,  therefore,  with  the  actual,  natural  body 
of  Christ,  which  is,  indeed,  peculiar,  spiritual  flesh.     He  is  to  be 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 23 

partaken  of  spiritually  also  at  other  places  than  at  the  Supper, 
but  there,  both  bodily  and  spiritually.  "  Whether  the  flesh  of 
Christ,"  says  he  further,  "  be  corporeally  or  spiritually  eaten.  His 
body  is  the  same  spiritual  flesh,  the  same  imperishable  food,  which 
is  in  the  Lord's  Supper  eaten  bodily  with  the  mouth  and  spirit- 
ually with  the  heart — or  eaten  spiritually  with  the  heart  alone 
through  the  Word,  as  taught  in  John  vi.  Whether  it  enters  the 
mouth  or  the  heart,  it  is  the  same  body." 

If  we  seek  to  discover  what  is  meant  precisely  by  the  "  spir- 
itual eating  "  here  spoken  of,  whose  object  is  said  to  be  a  body, 
we  cannot,  in  view  of  the  emphasis  which  is  here  also  laid  upon 
the  conception  of  eating,  persuade  ourselves  that  it  is  for  him 
only  a  sort  of  devout  contemplation  of  the  flesh,  or  humanity,  of 
Christ,  in  which  the  object  contemplated  yet  remains  outside  of 
the  individual  contemplating — or  that  it  is  merely  a  grasping  in 
faith  of  that  which  has  been  accomplished  for  us  by  the  suffering 
and  death  of  the  body  of  Christ.  We  shall  observe  again  here- 
after, in  our  systematic  review,  how  deeply  concerned  was  Luther 
to  conceive  in  the  most  profound  and  real  way  the  unification  of 
faith  with  its  object,  with  the  personal  Christ,  with  the  inseparable 
humanity  and  divinity  of  Christ.  The  present  document,  more- 
over, bears  the  very  strongest  testimony  to  the  inseparable  union 
of  the  entire  combined  humanity  and  divinity  of  Christ  in  their 
omnipresence  and,  yet  further,  in  their  conjunction  (  Gebundensein) 
with  the  Word,  to  which  Christ  Himself  binds  Himself  for  the 
benefit  of  faith.  How  this  occurs,  however,  or  how  the  person 
of  Christ,  in  so  far  as  it  is  co7-poreal,  can  be  thus  eaten  also  spir- 
itually, and  so  taken  up  into  the  heart,  Luther  does  not  attempt 
further  to  explain,  nor  to  make  comprehensible  or  clear  to  the 
understanding.  He  presents  only  the  one  leading  thought  which 
may  be  made  available  in  this  direction,  /.  e.,  that  the  flesh  of 
Christ  has  a  peculiar,  and  that,  too,  a  "  spiritual  "  character. 
Here  again  we  fail  to  find  any  more  definite  analysis  of  this  spir- 
itual character  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  or  its  relation  to  the  spirit 
of  the  individual  receiving  it.  The  points  now  at  issue  did  not 
lead  Luther  to  an  examination  of  these  features  of  the  problem. 
He  assumed  that  his  opponents,  although  stumbling  in  the  dark, 
so  far  as  the  conception  of  the  spiritual  and  bodily  participation 
was  concerned,  were  yet  sincere  at  least  in  their  advocacy  of  the 
spiritual  participation. 


124  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

It  became  necessary,  still  further,  in  the  controversy,  to  eluci- 
date the  question  of  the  significance  and  value  of  /hat  bo  t/i/y  far- 
taking  of  the  flesh  which  the  opposing  party  entirely  rejected. 

We  find  here  again  a  summary  treatment  of  the  objections 
similar  to  that  already  encountered.  Addressing  himself  especially 
to  OEcolampadius,  Luther  notices  the  two  questions  raised  by  the 
latter,  i.  e.,  what  is  the  benefit  of  the  presence  of  the  body  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  what  is  the  necessity  for  it?  To  the  second 
inquiry,  he  replies,  first  of  all,  that  it  is  necessary  for  God's  sake, 
in  order  that  Christ  may  not  become  a  liar  in  His  words  :  "  This 
is  my  body  "  ;  and  necessary  for  the  sake  of  our  faith,  in  order 
that  our  faith  may  accord  with  the  Word  of  God.  The  first 
"  benefit  "  he  pronounces  to  be,  that  shrewd  spirits  and  reason 
may  be  blinded  and  brought  to  shame — the  proud  stumbling  and 
falling  and  never  partaking  of  the  Supper  of  Christ,  the  humble, 
on  the  contrary,  arising  and  alone  partaking  of  the  Supper.  (As 
to  the  non-participation  of   the   Sacramentarians,  see  p.  129  sq.) 

Luther  directs  attention,  further,  to  the  value,  or  benefit,  of  the 
Word,  which  we  have  also  likewise  in  the  Supper.  This  is  cer- 
tainly, he  declares,  not  useless,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  Word  of 
life,  grace,  salvation,  strength,  etc.,  bringing  and  strengthening 
faith,  overcoming  sin,  the  devil,  death,  hell  and  all  that  is  evil, 
and  making  us  children  and  heirs  of  God.  All  this  must,  there- 
fore, also  be  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  How,  then,  can  men  talk  so 
rashly  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  though  it  were  nothing  but  the 
flesh  of  cattle? 

The  above  claim  is  made  by  Luther  as  setting  forth  the  benefit 
which  the  very  Word  itself  carries 'with  it,  and  in  viewtof  which, 
if  for  no  other  reason,  the  Lord's  Supper  must  be  considered  as 
in  a  general  way  beneficial.  He  is  well  aware,  however,  that  the 
opponents  press  the  question  :  "  What  is  the  benefit  of  the  body 
of  Christ,  as  such,  in  the  bread?"  To  this  particular  question 
the  document  now  before  us  addresses  itself  as  no  earlier  writing 
of  the  Reformer  has  done,  and  gives  a  new  turn  to  the  correlated 
ideas  in  the  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Sermon  which  we  last  examined  had  merely  made  brief 
mention  of  a  bestowal  of  the  body  upon  us  for  forgiveness,  and 
of  a  bestowal  of  Christ,  in  general,  with  the  blessings  secured  by 
Him — and  that  in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  us  to  conceive  of  the 
bestowal  as  accomplished  immediately  in  the  Word  and  not  in 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  125 

the  body  of  Christ.     Luther  now  treats  distinctly  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  body,  or  flesh,  itself.' 

The  fundamental  principle  is  found  in  the  spiritual  and  divine 
character  of  the  flesh,  as  being  the  flesh  of  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Logos.  To  this  is  to  be  applied,  not  with  Zwingli, 
"That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh"  (John  iii.  6),  but, 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  That  is  to  say, 
what  comes  from  the  Spirit  is  spiritual,  however  corporeal  and 
visible  it  may  be.  But  the  body  of  Christ  was,  according  to 
Luke  i.  34,  35,  born  of  the  Spirit.  This  flesh  is,  therefore,  a 
spiritual  food,  and,  further,  as  spiritual,  also  living,  eternal,  im- 
perishable, imparting  life  to  those  who  partake  of  it  and  preserv- 
ing them  from  death.  Here,  then,  occurs  the  statement,  that 
the  flesh  of  Christ  is  the  same  spiritual  flesh,  the  same  imperish- 
able food,  whether  it  be  eaten  bodily  with  the  mouth  or  spiritually 
with  the  heart.  Luther  further  designates  it  concisely  "  flesh  of 
God,  flesh  of  Spirit"  {Gottesfleisch,  Geistesfleiscli) .  It  is,  says 
he,  in  God  and  God  in  it.  It  is  full  of  divinity,  of  eternal  good, 
of  life,  etc.  The  Holy  Ghost  Himself  dwells  in  it.  Yea,  if  only 
the  body  of  Christ  were  in  the  bread,  and  no  external  Word  of 
God  connected  with  it,  which  is,  of  course,  an  impossible  suppo- 
sition, yet  would  the  body  not  be  present  without  the  inward 
eternal  Word,  which  is  God  Himself,  and  which,  according  to 
John  i.  14,  became  flesh  and  is  in  the  flesh. 

We  have  here,  therefore,  living,  life-giving,  spiritual  food,  for 
both  spiritual  and  bodily  participation.  And  thus,  according  to 
Luther,  the  bodily  participation,  as  such,  has  also  its  benefit. 
That  is  to  say,  even  upon  our  bodies,  which  in  the  bodily  partici- 
pation receive  the  spiritual  food,  it  must  exercise  its  life-giving 
power.  Even  the  mouth,  the  7ieck,  the  loins  {Leih) ,  which  eat  the 
body  of  Christ  shall  have  their  benefit  therefroin,  that  they  shall 
live  forever  and  arise  at  the  last  day  to  everlasting  happiness. 
This  is  the  secret  power  and.  benefit  which  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
passes  from  the  body  of  Christ  into  our  body.  It  cannot  be 
present  in  vain.  It  must  give  life  and  salvation  to  our  body,  in 
accordance  with  its  own  character.  Perishable  food  is  trans- 
formed into  the  body  that  eats  it.     This  spiritual  food  cannot  be 

'The  principal  sources  for  the  following  are-Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  93  sq.,  96-101, 
116,  125,  130  sq.,  132  sq.,  135  sqq.,  85-87. 


126  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

consumed,  digested  or  transformed.  On  the  contrary,  it  changes 
him  who  eats  it  into  itself,  and  digests  his  flesh,  so  that  he,  too, 
becomes  spiritual,  eternally  alive  and  blessed.  It  is,  to  use  a 
gross  illustration,  as  though  a  wolf  should  devour  a  sheep,  and 
the  sheep  should  prove  to  be  such  strong  food  as  to  transform 
the  wolf  and  make  of  it  a  sheep.  A  similar  process  may  be 
noted  in  the  original  conquest  of  death  by  the  surrender  of  the 
flesh  of  Christ  to  the  experience  of  dying.  Death,  indeed,  tried 
its  power  once  upon  this  imperishable  flesh,  and  sought  to  con- 
sume and  digest  it ;  but  it  could  not  accomplish  its  end.  The 
flesh  rent  the  loins  of  death.  The  food  was  too  strong  for  death, 
and  consumed  and  digested  its  devourer.  In  support  of  this 
efficacy  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  I^ord's  Supper,  Luther  fre- 
quently cites  the  query  of  Irenseus  :  "  If  the  body  were  not  also 
to  be  saved,  for  what  purpose  should  it  then  be  fed  with  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the  sacrament?" — and  also  the  saying  of 
St.  Hilary :  "  Therefore  does  He  desire  to  be  in  us  naturally, 
both  in  the  soul  and  in  the  body,  according  to  John  vi.  56." 

Such  power,  therefore,  lies  in  the  body  of  Christ  in  and  of 
itself.  The  flesh  must,  therefore,  of  itself  be  beneficial,  because 
it  is  the  flesh  of  the  eternal  Word,  even  though  it  were  possible 
for  the  body  to  be  alone  in  the  Supper,  without  the  Word.  But 
this  is  not  the  case.  In  connection  with  the  body  stand  also  the 
words  of  Christ,  which  the  heart  grasps  by  faith.  In  that  very 
act,  to  the  bodily  participation  of  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  added  the 
spiritual.  And  here  Luther  now  sets  both  plainly  side  by  side, 
with  the  benefits  derived  from  each,  declaring :  If  we  eat  the 
body  spiritually  through  the  Word,  it  remains  spiritually  in  the 
soul ;  if  we  eat  it  bodily,  it  remains  bodily  in  us,  and  we  in  it ;  it 
continually  transforms  us — the  soul  into  righteousness,  the  body 
into  immortality. 

More  distinctly  still  do  we  find  the  relation  between  the  spiritual 
and  the  bodily  participation  unfolded  in  the  utterances  of  Luther. 

On  the  one  hand,  even  the  soul,  in  its  spiritual  participation, 
is  assisted  by  the  bodily  partaking  of  the  flesh;  in  so  far  as  the 
latter  is  accompanied  by  faith.  Not  only  does  the  heart  seize 
upon  the  words,  in  order  to  eat  spiritually  what  the  mouth  eats 
bodily,  but  faith  clings  also  to  the  body  itself  which  is  in  the 
bread  and  which  the  mouth  eats.  Bread  and  body  are  here  not 
a  useless  external  thing  for  us,  because  that  which  is  external  de- 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 27 

e 

pends  upon  the  Word  and  fixes  our  faith,  just  as  God  commonly — 
as  even  in  Old  Testament  times — gives  us  His  Word  in  such  a 
way,  that  He  includes  and  presents  to  us  therein  some  bodily 
thing.  Viewing  the  subject  from  this  side,  namely,  with  regard 
to  the  significance  which  the  presence  and  the  oral  participation 
of  the  body  are  supposed  to  have  for  the  soul  and  faith,  we  are 
here  again  brought  to  the  earlier  conception  of  the  body  as  a  sign 
and  pledge.  And  we  are  now  prepared  to  comprehend  the  full 
meaning  of  Luther,  when  he  says  :  '■'■The  vioiiUi  eats  bodily  for  the 
heart.''''  Not  only  does  the  mouth  perform  what  the  heart,  from 
its  very  nature,  cannot  perform,  but  that  which  the  mouth  does 
inures  also  to  the  benefit  of  the  heart  itself,  since  the  latter  con- 
templates with  the  eye  of  faith  and  for  the  strengthening  of  faith, 
in  accordance  with  the  words  of  Christ,  the  act  of  the  mouth  pre- 
scribed by  Christ. 

But  Luther  lays  much  greater  stress  upon  the  reverse  proposi- 
tion :  "  The  heart  eats  for  the  mouth  spiritually."  It  is  in  his 
view  a  matter  of  far  more  weighty,  and  even  finally  decisive,  sig- 
nificance, that  the  eating  of  the  heart  should  be  combined  with 
the  eating  of  the  mouth.  Not  only  does  our  irrational  body  in 
itself  fail  to  realize  what  sort  of  food  it  is  eating,  whereas  the  soul 
sees  and  understands  that  upon  this  food  the  body  shall  subsist 
forever ;  but  the  actual  impartation  of  this  benefit  to  the  body  by 
the  food  in  question  is  secured,  according  to  Luther,  only  through 
the  spiritual  participation,  or  through  the  belief  exercised  by  the 
soul,  and  the  Word  upon  which  such  belief  rests.  Even  before 
entering  upon  the  particular  discussion  of  the  benefit  of  bodily 
participation,  he  had  declared  :'  "  Is  there  a  spiritual  eating  here, 
then  must  also  the  bodily  eating  be  beneficial — on  account  of  the 
spiritual  eating^  And  further  :  "  Since  the  mouth  is  an  organ 
of  the  heart,  it  must  also  finally  live  to  eternity  on  account  of  the 
heart,  which  lives  forever  through  the  Word ;  for  the  mouth  here 
also  eats  bodily  the  same  eternal  food  which  the  heart  eats  spirit- 
ually with  it."  To  this,  too,  he  returns  after  all  that  he  has 
claimed  as  the  fruit  of  the  bodily  eating  itself.  In  immediate 
connection  with  his  appeal  to  Irengeus  and  Hilary  in  support  of 
the  transformation  of  our  bodies  into  immortality  by  the  bodily 
eating,  he  declares  :  ''The  bodily  benefit  is  accordingly  great,  and 

'Supra,  p.  121. 


128  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

e 

IS  a  consequence  of  {folget  aus)  (lie  spiritual.  His  conception 
evidently  is,  that  the  treasure  of  life,  which  enters  our  body 
through  the  mouth,  is  nevertheless  here  made  available  only  upon 
the  condition  that  we  with  the  heart  believe  the  Word  in  which 
this  treasure  is  included,  just  as  the  entire  sacrament,  with  all  that 
it  is  in  itself  or  brings  with  it,  remains  without  benefit,  and  even 
becomes  a  poison,  for  the  unbelieving.  We  may  cite,  in  illustra- 
tion, the  analogy  suggested  by  Luther,  that  the  conception  of 
Christ  in  the  womb  of  Mary  was  conditioned  by  the  faith  of  the 
Virgin.  If,  according  to  his  theory,  Mary  could  not  without  faith 
have  become  the  mother  of  Jesus,  but  God  might  nevertheless 
have  yet  formed  the  body  of  Jesus  within  her,  so,  likewise,  may 
God  permit  the  body  of  Christ  to  enter  the  body  of  unbelieving 
communicants  despite  their  unbelief,  but  yet  not  permit  the  life- 
power  residing  in  the  body  to  be  developed  in  them. 

There  yet  remains  for  us  the  question  :  Was  this  special  gift  to 
our  mouth  and  body  then  actually  necessary,  in  order  to  make 
the  body  a  fellow-heir  of  life  and  salvation?  Would  not  the  body 
have  enjoyed  this  distinction,  even  without  such  gift,  "  on  account 
of  the  heart,"  since  "  the  mouth  is  the  organ  of  the  heart"? 
Must  it  not  naturally  inure  to  the  benefit  also  of  the  body,  if,  as 
we  have  heard,  "  life,  grace,  salvation,"  etc.,  are  found  already  in 
the  Word*  itself,  and  if  the  Word  in  itself  "  overcomes  death  and 
all  evil"?  The  question  is  fully  justified  by  further  didactic 
statements  made  by  Luther,  not  only  in  his  earlier  writings,  but 
also  continuously,  during  the  present  and  later  periods,  outside  of 
his  controversial  publications  against  the  Sacramentarians — as,  for 
example,  when  he  places  life  and  salvation  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  which  faith  derives  from  the 
Word,  or  when  he  very  positively  declares,  that  faith  upon  the 
Word  can  give  salvation  even  without  oral  participation  in  the 
sacrament.  Of  this  we  shall  have  more  to  say  in  our  concluding 
review.  We  here  call  attention  to  yet  one  passage  in  the  docu- 
ment before  us,  in  which  Luther  himself,  represents  his  opponents 
as  saying  ;  "  Yes,  but  that  might  come  to  pass,  too,  without  the 
sacrament."'  To  this,  he  first  rejoins  :  Yes,  and  it  might  come  to 
pass,  too,  entirely  without  the  body  of  Christ  exalted  to  the  right 
hand    of    God,   or   even   without   the  Gospel.     He  then  argues 

'Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  141, 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 29 

further  :  It  might  just  as  well  be  asked,  why  there  was  any  need 
at  all  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  since  we  can  have  the  Gospel  and  the 
remembrance  of  Christ  in  all  sermons — or,  why  the  Scriptures 
should  be  read  by  individual  believers,  or  special  exhortations 
addressed  to  individuals,  since  all  such  exercises  might  be  con- 
ducted in  connection  with  the  general  public  preaching  of  the 
Word.  But  God  wants  to  fill  the  world,  and  to  give  Himself  in 
many  ways  by  His  Word  and  works,  in  order  to  help  and  strengthen 
us.  We  dare  not  be  so  sated  as  to  be  willing  to  endure  only  the 
one  way  which  may  just  happen  to  please  us.  We  remark  here,  that 
in  the  sentences  last  quoted,  the  bodily  nourishment  in  the  sacra- 
ment is  made  parallel  with  such  methods  of  divine  grace  as  certainly 
have  essentially  but  one  and  the  same  content — in  which  one  and 
the  same  saving  gift  is  brought  to  us,  though  in  various  ways. 

We  must,  finally,  note  in  the  present  publication,  without  deem- 
ing it  necessary  to  enter  upon  particulars,  the  careful  expositions 
of  the  patristic  utterances  relating  to  the  sacramental  presence  of 
the  body  as  such.  We  recognize  in  this  the  solicitude  of  Luther 
to  make  manifest  on  the  part  of  all  the  ancient  Fathers  an  agree- 
ment with  the  real  presence  as  maintained  by  himself.  We  shall 
hereafter  have  further  occasion  to  observe  what  great  importance 
he  here  attached  to  the  general  consensus  of  the  Church.  He 
had  already  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1525  engaged  learned 
friends  in  the  work  of  collecting  the  utterances  of  the  Fathers  in 
regard  to  the  sacrament.' 

The  severity  of  Luther's  judgment  in  regard  to  the  opponents 
against  whom  his  publications  were  now  directed,  and  in  regard 
to  the  character  of  their  faith  as  a  whole,  appears  to  have  been 
increased  rather  than  diminished  during  the  progress  of  the  con- 
troversy. Especially  in  this  pamphlet,  he  designates  them  as  men 
who  share  the  views  of  Carlstadt  and  Miinzer.  And  this  brings 
to  view  the  significance  which  he  concedes,  or  rather  that  which 
he  refuses  to  concede,  to  their  celebration  of  the  sacrament. 
He  considers  it,  as  we  have  seen,  as  God's  judgment  upon  the 
proud  who  take  ofifence  at  the  presence  of  the  body,  that  they 
shall  never  partake  of  the  Supper  of  Christ.  In  fact,  he  no 
longer  allows  to  their  sacramental  celebration  that  which  he  yet 
so  decidedly  maintains  in  the  case  of  unbelieving  communicants, 

9  ^  Briefe,  ii,  621. 


130  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

namely,  the  objective  dispensation  of  tiie  body  despite  the  un- 
belief of  the  recipient.  "Since  the  Fanatics,"  he  says,  "believe 
that  there  is  present  bare  bread  and  wine,  it  is,  therefore,  assuredly 
so ;  as  they  believe,  so  is  it  to  them,  and  they  eat  bare  bread  and 
wine,  and  partake  of  the  Lord's  body  neither  spiritually  nor  bodily." 
The  contradiction  of  his  own  principles  into  which  he  here  seems 
to  be  led  may  be  explained  without  difficulty.  When  he,  in 
other  connections,  speaks  of  unbeheving  recipients,  he  has  in 
view  cases  in  which  the  Supper  in  general  is  celebrated  by  a  con- 
gregation, or  church,  which  bases  its  act  upon  the  institution  of 
the  sacrament  by  Christ,  even  although  some  unbelieving  persons 
may  partake  in  it.  In  the  celebration  by  the  Sacramentarians, 
however,  he  can  no  longer,  in  view  of  the  interpretation  which 
they  give  to  the  words  of  institution,  at  all  recognize  this  basis. 
They  have,  as  the  document  next  to  be  examined  declares, 
neither  the  words  nor  the  appointed  ordinance  of  God,  but  have 
perverted  and  changed  them  to  suit  their  own  fancy."  We 
reserve,  however,  further  comment  upon  this  point  for  our  closing 
book.  It  may  at  least  be  questioned,  whether  there  does  not, 
after  all  explanations,  still  remain  a  conflict,  at  least,  with  certain 
declarations  of  Luther  himself  in  relation  to  baptism.  We  have 
designedly  first  introduced  these  propositions  at  this  place,  since 
they  appear  in  his  writings  not  so  much  in  any  profound  relation 
to  his  own  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  itself  as  in  connection  with 
his  zeal  against  the  Sacramentarians. 

C,    THE    LARGE    CONFESSION  OF  A.  D.    1 5  28    UPON  THE    LORD'S    SUPPER 

(  Grosses  Bekointniss  vom  Abendmahl  C/uisfi) . 

"is"  not  EQUIVALENT  to  "SIGNIFIES" BREAD  NOT  AN  APPROPRIATE 

FIGURE BREAKING  OF  BREAD  REFERS  TO  DISTRIBUTION ALL(KOSIS 

— MODES  OF  Christ's  presence — his  body  not  an  "  a/terinn 
infinitum  " — identical  predication — synecdoche — sacrament 

A    SIGN  of  christian   UNITY GIFT  OF  SACRAMENT   IS    FORGIVENESS 

OF    SINS. 

After  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius  had  replied  to  the  publication 
just  reviewed,  Luther's  own  doctrine,  in  so  far  as  opposed  to  their 
theories,  found  in  several  leading  aspects  a  fuller  development, 

lErl.  Ed.,  XXX,  369.     Comp.  upon  Hedge-masses,  Ibid.,  p.  153. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  I31 

and,  indeed,  the  most  thorough  exposition  of  the  points  in  ques- 
tion which  he  ever  attempted,  in  his  Large  Confession  upon  the 
Supper  of  Christ,  1528.^ 

We  refer  particularly  to  the  opposition  to  \\\t  figurative  intei- 
pretation  of  the  words  of  institution,  which  Luther  here  refutes 
more  thoroughly,  keenly  and  absolutely  than  elsewhere, — and,  pre- 
eminently, to  the  further  positive  justification  of  the  bodily  pres- 
ence upon  the  ground  of  the  unity  of  the  human  and  divine  in 
Christ. 

Against  the  Zwinglian  interpretation,  Luther  now  roundly  de- 
clares, that  not  only  has  the  evidence  in  support  of  its  view  of  the 
words  of  institution  never  been  produced,  but  the  word  "  is  " 
never  means  "  signifies  "  in  any  other  passage  of  the  Scriptures. 
He  declares  that,  if  all  the  Fanatics  together  can  produce  a  single 
passage  from  any  language  upon  earth  in  which  "  is  "  has  this 
meaning,  he  will  allow  that  they  have  won  their  case.  la  such 
passages  as  those  cited  by  Zwingli,  Luther — as  already  at  earlier 
dates,  especially  in  commenting  upon  i  Cor.  x.  4 — does  not 
accord  to  the  "  is  "  the  sense  of  "  signifies,"  but  declares  that  the 
description  assigned  to  the  subject  in  the  predicate  has  there 
become  a  **  new  word,"  or  received  a  new  meaning,  and  in  this 
new  meaning  it  is  to  be  really,  by  m.eans  of  the  "  is,"  predicated 
of  the  subject.  The  "  is,"  therefore,  retains  its  own  proper 
force.  We  may  say,  for  example,  that  ""  Christ  is  a  flower," 
inasmuch  as  we  see  Him  springing  from  Mary  as  such  a  beautiful 
child.  Here,  as  grammar  and.  rhetoric*  teach  us,.  "  flower  "  has 
become  a  new  word — has  received  a  new  significance  and  use ; 
and  hence  Christ  does  not,  according  to  this  proposition,  signify 
a  flower,  but  He  is  a  flower,  only  other  than  a  natural  one. 
Thus,  we  may  call  a  man  a  dog,  meaning  a  greedy  miser.  Here 
"  dog  "  stands  as  a  new  word,  and  the  man  is  not  said  to  signify 
a  dog,  but  to  be  a  dog.  It  is  common,  in  the  German  language, 
to  prefix  to  words  thus  transformed  such  terms,  as  "  right,"  or 
"  other,"  or  "  new."  Thus,  for  example,  we  may  say  :  "  You 
are  a  right  (real)  dog;  Zwingli  is  another  Korah,.  and  CEcolam- 
padius  a  new  Abiram."     Likewise,  also,  in  scriptural  passages,  to 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  151-373.  The  "Confession"  was  in  process  of  preparation  in 
November  1527  (Briefe,  iii,  225),  under  the  press  at  the  beginning  of  the  fol- 
lowing February  (Briefe,  iii,  279),  and  was  distributed  in  March,  1528 
(Briefe  iii.  296). 


132  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

which  the  opponents  appealed,  we  may  say:  "John  is  a  new 
Elias ;  Christ  is  a  right  (true)  rock,  a  right  (true)  vine." 

But  might  not  such  propositions  as  the  above,  if  interpreted  as 
is  here  done  by  Luther,  furnish  Qicolampadius  with  a  basis  for 
the  argument,  that  in  the  proposition,  "  This  is  my  body," 
although  the  "  is  "  does  not  stand  for  "  signifies,"  yet  the  word 
"  body  "  has  received  a  new  and  metaphorical  meaning?  To 
this,  Luther  objects,  in  the  first  place,  that,  according  to  Christian 
doctrine,  and  according  to  the  principles  of  grammar  as  well,  we 
dare  never  pass  from  the  old  meaning  of  a  word  to  a  new  one, 
unless  the  text  itseK,  or  reason,  compels  us  to  do  so,  or  unless  it 
is  rendered  necessary  by  other  passages  of  Scripture ;  and  this 
has  never  been  proved  by  CEcolampadius  in  regard  to  the  words 
of  institution.  He  then  argues,  further,  that,  in  the  tropical 
expressions  of  Scripture  which  are  adduced  as  evidence  by  his 
opponents,  the  term  in  question  (as,  for  example,  "Vine") 
indicates,  according  to  its  first,  old  meaning,  the  thing  which  is 
to  serve  as  a  figure  for  the  new ;  and,  according  to  the  new 
meaning,  the  new  and  real,  true  (nr/i/)  thing  itself.  Thus,  for 
example,  Christ  is  not  a  figure  of  the  vine,  but  the  vine  (accord- 
ing to  the  first  meaning)  is  a  figure  of  Christ  (with  reference  to 
that  attribute  of  Christ,  by  virtue  of  which  He  is  the  Vine  itself 
according  to  the  second  meaning  of  the  word,  or  the  true  Vine). 
But  this  relation  would  be  reversed,  according  to  Q^colampadius, 
in  the  sentence,  "  This  is  my  body."  Upon  his  theory,  "  body  " 
would  stand  for  "  sign,  or  figure,  of  the  body,"  whereas,  according 
to  the  analogy  of  the  illustrations  adduced,  the  word  "  body  " 
would  have  to  have  been  so  transformed  as  to  be  equivalent  to 
the  "  real,  new  body,"  whose  figure  was  the  natural  body  of 
Christ.  Neither  is  Luther  willing  to  acknowledge  as  parallel 
cases  the  assertion  made  in  regard  to  a  picture  :  "  This  is  Paul," 
or  that  in  regard  to  a  wooden  rose  :  "  This  is  a  rose."  The 
latter  is  really  a  rose,  only  not  a  natural  one,  but  merely  a  wooden 
one;  and  when  we  say  of  it,  "  This  is  a  rose,"  we  do  not  mean 
thereby  to  say  that  it  is  a  figure  of  a  rose,  but  we  mean  to  say 
what  it  is  in  its  real  nature.  According  to  this  analogy,  we  would 
have  to  have  in  the  Lord's  Supper  two  bodies  of  Christ,  which 
might  both  truthfully  be  called  "  my  body,"  and  one  of  these 
would  have  to  be  a  body  of  Christ  composed  of  bread. 

Christ,  declares  Luther  at  length,  is  by  this  supposed  tropical 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE   WARTBURG.  I33 

sense  of  His  language  made  a  trifling  fool  and  vain  prattler ;  for 
He  has  then  introduced  the  words,  **  This  is  my  body,"  in  an 
entirely  unnecessary  and  useless  way,  since  we  could  certainly 
without  them  have  meditated  upon  His  death  as  we  receive  the 
bread  and  wine.  Further,  the  allegory  itself,  which  He  is  here 
supposed  to  employ,  has  no  benefit  whatever  for  faith.  More- 
over, the  comparison  which  He  is  here  supposed  to  have  made 
between  bread  and  His  body  is  itself  essentially  a  foolish  one  ; 
for  there  is  nothing  here  in  which  the  thing  likened  and  the 
likeness  coincide  (no  tertium  comparationis).  The  bread,  that 
is  to  say,  has  no  characteristic  in  which  the  body  resembles  it. 
If  Christ  desired  to  present  in  a  meal  a  figure  of  His  body.  He 
would  much  better  have  left  the  old  Mosaic  meal  of  the  Passover 
Lamb  remain  for  this  purpose,  which  does  really  most  excellently 
signify  His  body  given  for  us.  Nor  is  there  any  help  for  the 
Fanatics  in  the  notion  that,  in  the  passage  i  Cor.  x.  24  ("  my 
body,  broken  for  you"),  the  resemblance  lies  in  the  breaking, 
/.  e.,  that,  as  the  bread  is  broken  at  the  table,  so  Christ  is  tortured 
upon  the  cross  for  us.  The  "  broken,"  he  claims,  must  have  the 
same  sense  as  the  breaking  immediately  before,  when  it  is  said 
that  Jesus  took  bread  and  brake  it.  Christ  certainly  did  not 
crucify  Himself,  as  would  have  had  to  be  the  case  if  the  "  break  " 
here  were  equivalent  to  "  kill,"  and  if  the  breaking  of  bread, 
which  occurred  by  His  own  hand,  were  a  figure  of  the  killing  of 
His  body.  It  is  still,  therefore,  to  be  maintained,  as  was  proved 
in  the  pamphlet  against  the  Heavenly  Prophets,  that  the  breakirg 
here  is  to  be  understood  of  the  distribution  of  the  bread,  and 
likewise  of  the  body.  Besides,  St.  John  (xix.  36)  expressly 
denies  the  breaking  of  the  body  of  Christ.  But  even  though  the 
bread  were,  on  account  of  the  breaking  of  it,  to  be  compared 
with  the  body,  there  would  still  be  no  corresponding  relation 
between  the  wine  and  the  blood  ;  for  the  drinking  is,  even  by  the 
declaration  of  the  opponents  themselves,  a  figure,  not  of  the  shed 
blood  of  Christ,  but  of  the  spiritual  drinking,  or  faith. 

With  unremitting  industry,  and  with  an  acuteness  which  no 
opponent  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  was  able  to  deny,  Luther, 
in  the  sections  of  this  book  from  which  we  have  quoted,  criticized 
the  interpretation  of  the  Swiss  Reformers,  tore  to  pieces  their 
arguments,  and  in  a  masterly  way  revealed  the  points  of  weakness 
presented,  especially  in  Zwingli's  "  significat,"  and  in  the  array 


134  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

of  supposed  analogous  forms  of  speech.  And  the  more  plentiful 
were  the  points  of  weakness  thus  discovered,  the  more  easily 
can  we  understand  why  the  opposing  exegesis  did  not  succeed  in 
disturbing  in  the  least  degree  his  conviction  of  the  correctness  of 
his  own  doctrinal  view. 

But  the  dogmatical  development,  which  now  again  comes  into 
prominent  view,  possesses  for  us  naturally  a  far  greater  interest 

The  principal  point  in  dispute  Luther  now  again  declares  to 
be,  Whether  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  in  conflict  with  His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 
Zwingli's  reply  to  Luther's  last  publication  could  not  but  serve  to 
carry  this  inquiry  and  the  further  question,  in  what  way  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body  of  Christ  should  be  conceived,  back  to  the  gen- 
eral question  of  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 

Luther  here  encountered  the  Zwinglian  doctrine  of  Ailceosis, 
If  the  Scriptures,  when  speaking  of  one  nature  of  Christ,  employ 
expression^  which  really  apply  only  to  the  other,  and,  accordingly, 
without  discrimination  affirm  now  of  one  and  now  of  the  other 
nature  the  conditions  and  activities  described,  this  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  Zwingli,  a  mere  form  of  speech,  which  he  designates 
A/hvosis.  Thus,  as  Luther  describes  the  theory,  the  Scriptures 
are  supposed  simply  to  take  the  one  nature  for  the  other,  whilst 
each  of  the  natures,  in  reality,  yet  remains  so  distinct  from  the 
other  as  to  retain  only  its  own  characteristic  modes  of  activity. 
Against  this  AUeeosis  Luther  cannot  now  too  earnestly  warn.  He 
calls  it  the  devil's  mask.  He  declares  that  it  is  an  entirely  arbi- 
trary invention  of  Zwingli,  without  any  evidence  from  Scripture. 
Its  grandmother  is  the  old  sorceress.  Dame  Reason.  And  he 
turns  at  once  against  it  the  force  of  the  fundamental  interest  of 
Christian  faith.'  When  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  this  is,  according  to  Zwingli,  to  be  understood  only  of  His 
human  nature.  But,  in  this  case,  Christ  accomplishes  nothing 
more  by  His  sufferings  than  any  other  mere  saint.  If  only  the 
human  nature  suffered  for  us,  then  is  Christ  a  poor  Saviour,  and 
stands  in  need,  indeed,  of  a  Saviour  for  Himself.  If  the  person 
of  Christ  is  divided,  as  this  accursed  Aliceosis  teaches,  the  whole 
Christian  faith  and  the  salvation  of  the  world  are  at  once  swept 
away.     He  himself  finds  the  explanation  of  the  fact,  that  the 

'Cf.  supra,  p.  83. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 35 

Scriptures  ascribe  to  the  humanity  of  Christ  that  which  affects  the 
divinity,  and  the  reverse,  in  the  actual  union  (unification)  into 
which,  the  divinity  has  entered  with  the  humanity  in  the  person 
of  Christ.  Divinity  and  humanity  are  in  Christ  one  person. 
The  person,  Christ,  is  true  God.  If  Christ  now  suffer,  we  may 
rightly  say  that  the  Son  of  God  suffers  :  that  is  to  say,  the  one 
part,  the  divinity,  does  not,  indeed,  suffer ;  but  the  person,  who 
is  God,  suffers  in  the  other  part,  namely,  the  humanity.  It  is  as 
though  we  should  say,  "  The  king's  son  is  wounded,"  although  it 
is  only  his  leg  that  is  wounded ;  or,  "  Absalom  is  beautiful," 
although  it  is  only  his  body  that  is  beautiful.  Since  body  and 
soul  are  one  person,  whatever  befalls  either  the  body  or  the  soul, 
or  even  the  smallest  member  of  the  body,  is  rightly  ascribed  to 
the  whole  person.  Just  in  this  way  we  are  to  apply  to  the  entire 
person  of  Christ,  in  which  divinity  and  humanity  make  one  per- 
son, whatever  befalls  either  part  of  the  person,  because  the  two 
are  but  one  person.  We  do  not  mingle  the  two  natures  into  one 
nature.  We  do  not  say  that  divinity  is  humanity,  or  that  the 
divine  nature  is  human  nature.  But  we  mingle  the  two  differeiit 
natures  into  one  single  person,  and  say  :  God  is  man ;  man  is 
God.  By  means  of  the  Allccosis,  on  the  contrary,  the  person  of 
Christ  is  divided,  as  though  there  were  two  persons.  When,  for 
example,  the  passages  which  speak  of  suffering  are  applied  to  the 
human  nature  alone,  then,  since  not  the  nature,  but  the  person,  is 
the  subject  of  the  activity  or  suffering,  Christ  must  be  two  persons. 
Having  thus  condemned  in  general  terms  Zwingli's  conception 
of  the  relation  between  the  natures  and  the  person  of  Christ, 
Luther  passes  again  to  his  fundamental  proposition,  that  no  con- 
tradiction has  been  proved  between  Christ's  existence  in  heaven 
and  Y\\%  presence  in  the  Lortfs  Supper  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
the  former  involves  the  ubiquity  of  the  body.  With  this  proposi- 
tion he  begins  a  new  section  of  his  dissertation,  without  attaching 
it,  in  the  form  of  an  inference,  to  the  preceding  section.  Nor  is 
the  denial  of  the  Allceosis  really,  in  itself,  the  premise  from  which 
he  deduces  the  omnipresence  of  the  body ;  and  he  himself  de- 
clares, on  the  other  hand,  that  the  latter  doctrine  could  not  in 
any  event  be  overthrown  by  the  Allccosis  theory.  For  the  idea 
underlying  the  proposition,  that  the  body  of  Chi'ist  is  everywhere, 
is  not,  says  he,  the  same  as  that  to  which  the  Allceosis  directly 
refers.     The  latter  has  to  do  only  with  the  activities  of  the  two 


136  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

natures,  whereas  his  proposition  has  to  do  with  their  essential 
character.  His  proposition,  it  is  true,  is  an  inference  from  the 
same  unity  of  the  person  and  the  same  union  of  the  natures 
themselves  in  the  person,  from  which  he  deduces  also  the  necessity 
of  rejecting  the  Alloeosis.  But  to  the  height  of  his  proposition, 
as  he  says,  no  AUaosis  could  reach.  The  latter  can  be  applied 
only  to  utterances  concerning  the  works  of  Christ,  as  when  He  is 
said  to  drink,  to  die,  etc.  But  when  it  said  that  "  God  is  man," 
or  that  "  man  is  God,"  this  cannot  by  any  means  be  an  Alloeosis  ; 
"  God  "  must,  at  all  events,  be  taken  to  mean  God,  and  "  man  " 
to  mean  man.  Luther  then  concludes,  as  in  his  earlier  rejoin- 
ders :  Jesus  Christ  is  essentially  natural,  true,  complete  God  and 
man  in  One  person,  unseparated  and  undivided.  "Since  His 
humanity  has  become  one  person  wjth  God,  and  so  entirely  and 
altogether  taken  up  into  God  above  all  creatures  that  .He,  as  it 
were,  clings  to  Him,  it  is,  therefore,  not  possible  that  the  God  could 
be  anywhere  where  He  would  not  be  man.  The  two  natures  are 
so  united  with  one  another  that  they  belong  together  more  inti- 
mately than  soul  and  body ;  and,  accordingly,  Christ  'must  also  be 
man  wherever  He  is  God.  But  the  right  hand  of  God,  and 
Christ,  by  virtue  of  His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  and  by 
virtue  of  His  own  essential  divinity,  are  everywhere.  In  these 
declarations  Luther  again,  referring  to  John  iii.  13,  includes  also 
the  period  of  Christ's  earthly  life.  He  charges  upon  Zwingli, 
who  denied  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  present  wherever  God  is, 
and  thus  at  the  same  time  in  heaven  and  on  -earth,  that  his  coarse 
spirit  knows  nothing  of  what  it  means  to  "  be  in  heaven,"  and 
he  appeals  to  the  fact  that  Christ  was  then  already,  according 
to  John  iii.  13,  at  the  same  time  in  heaven.  And  he  expressly 
adds,  that  this  applies  also  to  the  humanity  of  Christ  from  the 
time  of  His  existence  in  His  mother's  womb.  It  was  higher  and 
deeper  in  God  than  any  angel,  and  hence,  also,  higher  in  heaven. 
According  to  this,  there  is  left  between  the  states  of  Christ,  as 
walking  upon  the  earth  and  as  exalted  in  heaven,  only  the  differ- 
ence, that  His  humanity  in  the  former  state,  although  then  already 
the  above-depicted  consequences  of  its  union  with  the  divinity 
pertained  to  it,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  revealed  itself  in  external 
visibility  and  humble  form  at  one  particular  place  on  earth. 

If  we  now  look  back  from  this  point  upon  the  section  of  the 
Confession  directed  against  the  AlUrosis,  we  cannot  fail  to  note. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  137 

further,  that  conclusions  are  here  drawn  directly  from  the  personal 
unity  itself,  which  go  far  beyond  anything  which  might  have  been 
inferred  merely  from  the  positions  then  taken.  From  the  latter, 
no  more  could  be  immediately  concluded  than  that,  in  analogy 
with  the  declarations  concerning  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  the 
person  which  is  human  possesses  in  the  other  part,  namely,  the 
divinity,  the  attribute  of  omnipresence.  Here,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  asserted,  that  by  virtue  of  this  union,  the  omnipresence, 
which  belongs  in  the  first  instance  to  the  one  part,  /.  e.,  the 
divinity,  and  which  is  further  said,  according  to  the  previous  sec- 
tion referred  to,  to  belong  to  the  person  of  Christ  with  reference 
to  this  one  part,  must  have  also  passed  over  to  the  humanity 
itself.  The  controversial  writings  against  the  Sacramentarians 
carry  us  no  farther  in  doctrinal  distinctions  upon  these  points. 
Luther's  further  utterances  in  relation  to  them  will  find  their 
appropriate  place  in  our  connected  presentation  of  his  Christology. 

Thus  we  have  found  the  Christological  basis  of  Luther's  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper  again  unfolded  in  his  Cotifession.  He 
desires,  however,  to  clear  the  way  more  fully  for  the  acceptance 
of  the  bodily  presence,  which  is  for  him  assured  by  the  relation 
of  the  humanity  of  Christ  to  His  divinity,  by  expounding  anew, 
yet  more  thoroughly  and  with  minuter  distinctions  than  hitherto, 
the  theory  that  God,  in  order  to  be  at  any  one  place,  is  by  no 
means  boutid  to  a  local  presence. 

He  discriminates  between  three  modes  of  being  at  one  place, 
/.  e.,  locally  or  circumscriptively,  definitively  and  repletively. 

A  thing  is,  according  to  Luther,  locally,  or  /«  a  comprehensible 
manner,  in  a  place,  when  the  place  and  the  thing  present  in  it 
correspond  with  and  measure  one  another,  when  the  one  covers 
the  other,  and  when  the  one  is  the  measure  of  the  other ;  as,  for 
example,  the  wine  and  the  vessel  which  it  fills.  In  this  way  the 
body  of  Christ  was  present  when  He,  walking  upon  the  earth, 
filled  or  vacated  space  equal  to  the  size  of  His  body.  Since 
then.  He  can  still  make  use  of  this  m.ode  whenever  He  so  desires. 
He  did  employ  it  in  His  appearances  to  His  disciples  after  His 
resurrection,  and  He  will  employ  it  again  in  His  visible  mani- 
festation at  the  Last  Day.  But  He  is  not  in  such  a  mode  with 
the  Father,  or  in  heaven.  It  is  only  to  the  abandoning  of  this 
mode  of  presence  that  Luther  applies  the  expressions  concerning 
the   departure   of   Christ   from    this   world,  etc.,  with   which  his 


130  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

opponents  sought  to  disprove  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment. 

A  thing  is  present  definitively,  or  in  a?i  incomprehensible  manner, 
when  it  is  at  a  certain  definite  place,  which  place  is  corporeal 
and  comprehensible  and  has  its  dimensions  in  space,  its  length, 
breadth  and  thickness,  but  when  the  said  thing  is  not  of  itself 
present  in  a  comprehensible  manner,  cannot  be  measured  by  the 
dimensions  of  the  place,  and  has  itself  neither  length  nor  breadth. 
(The  term,  definitive,  was  taken  by  1-uther  fiom  Occam.)  Thus, 
angels  or  spirits  are  present  at  places  in  such  a  manner  that  they 
can  be  in  a  whole  house  or  city,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  in  a  chest 
or  nut-shell.  Luther  now  again  applies  the  illustration  drawn 
from  the  recorded  facts  concerning  the  body  of  Christ  after  the 
resurrection,  to  which  he  had  appealed  in  the  document  last 
reviewed.  There  was  here  no  measuring  nor  comprehension  as 
the  body  passed  through  the  sealed  stone  or  the  closed  door. 
It  occupied  no  space,  nor  did  the  stone  give  up  to  it  any  space. 
The  stone  remained  an  entire,  solid  stone,  and  the  closed  door 
likewise  remained  unaltered  ;  and  yet  His  body  was  at  the  same 
time  in  the  place  where  wood  and  stone  also  were,  and  still  re- 
mained itself  as  large  as  before.  And  thus  He  passes,  says  Luther 
further,  upon  all  occasions  through  all  created  things  at  His 
pleasure.  This  same  manner  of  presence,  he  afifirms,  character- 
izes also  the  angels,  and  shall  be  shared  even  by  all  the  saints  in 
heaven.  They  shall  likewise  be  able  to  pass  in  their  bodily  form 
through  all  created  things,  just  as  the  angels  and  the  devil  do. 
He  thinks  to  find  a  further  parallel  for  this  mode  of  presence  in 
the  fact,  that  our  vision  extends  for  miles,  and  is  yet  at  the  same 
time  present  at  all  included  places,  without  taking  up  or  surren- 
dering space — or  that  a  sound  passes,  in  a  similar  way,  through 
the  air  and  through  walls,  and  light  through  air,  water  or  glass. 
In  this  mode  of  presence  he  finds  the  justification  of  his  claim 
for  the  presence  of  the  body  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  Christ 
could  be  in  the  closed  door  without  taking  up  room,  or  place, 
equal  to  His  own  size,  why  not  also  in  the  bread?  All  created 
things,  in  general,  are  just  as  penetrable  and  as  present  to  Him 
as  its  corporeal  place  is  to  any  other  body.  And  the  basis  for 
this  claim  he  finds  in  the  asserted  unity  of  the  two  natures  in  the 
One  person.  By  virtue  of  this  unity,  Christ  can  manifest  Himself 
according  to  the  first,  or  comprehensible  manner,  at  any  place. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 39 

as  He  may  desire,  and  yet  also  employ,  in  addition,  the  other 
and  incomprehensible  mode  of  presence. 

He  then  proceeds  to  deduce  from  this  same  unity  the  further 
consequence,  that  Christ  is,  and  can  be,  in  the  third  manner,  or 
repletively,  present  everywhere.  A  thing  is  repletively,  or  super- 
naturally,  at  places  when  it  is  at  the  same  time,  in  its  entirety  and 
completeness,  at  all  places  and  fills  all  places,  and  is  yet  bounded 
and  comprehended  by  no  place ;  as  God  is,  in  Jer.  xxiii.  23,  said 
to  be  a  God  near  at  hand,  and  not  afar  off,  since  He  fills  heaven 
and  earth.  Just  in  this  manner  must  Christ  also,  since  He  must 
be  as  man  wherever  He  is  as  God,  be  present  everywhere  with 
His  humanity,  according  to  this  supernatural,  divine  mode  of 
presence.  According  to  this  third  mode,  all  created  things  are 
for  Him  yet  far  more  penetrable  and  more  truly  present  than 
according  to  the  second.  If  He  can,  according  to  the  second 
mode,  be  in  created  things  without  being  measured  or  compre- 
hended by  them,  much  more  is  He  then  wonderfully  in  them  ac- 
cording to  the  third  mode,  so  that  not  only  do  they  not  measure 
or  comprehend  Him,  but  He,  on  the  contrary,  has  them  present 
before  Him,  measures  and  comprehends  them.  We  must  locate 
this,  His  nature,  since  He  is  one  with  God,  far — very  far — with- 
out and  beyond  all  created  things,  as  far  as  God  is  without  and 
beyond  them,  and  yet,  again,  as  deeply  in  and  near  all  created 
things  as  God  is  within  them. 

Luther  here  again  speaks  with  great  contempt  of  the  contracted 
conception  of  the  divine  presence  in  general  held  by  his  oppo- 
nents. The  divinity  is,  according  to  their  notion,  present  every- 
where in  the  corporeal,  comprehensible  manner  {localiter),  just 
as  though  God  were  a  sort  of  great  extended  something,  reaching 
through  all  creatures  and  out  beyond  them,  filling  the  A\orld  and 
sticking  out  beyond  it  like  the  straw  in  an  over-full  straw  sack. 
In  confutation  of  this,  he  repeats  the  declaration  that  God  is  no: 
such  a  stretched-out  being,  with  special  dimensions,  but  a  super- 
natural, inscrutable  Being,  present  entire  and  complete  in  every 
grain  of  corn,  and  yet  in  and  above  and  beyond  all  created  things. 
When  we  speak  of  the  presence  of  God,  the  word  "  in  "  does  not 
mean  a  comprehensible  inclusion,  as  in  a  bag  or  basket,  but  it 
signifies  all  that  we  understand  by  "  above,  beyond,  beneath, 
through  and  through  again,  and  everywhere." 

Zwingli  had  objected  that,  if   the  body  of  Christ  were  present 


I40  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

wherever  God  is,  this  body  would  then  be  an  alknun  infinitum  — 
another  infinite  thing  Uke  God  Himself.  But  Luther  is  by  no 
means  ready  to  accept  or  concede  this.  We  have,  indeed,  already 
heard  him  speak  of  the  body  of  Jesus  as  having  a  definite  size 
{vid.  supra  :  "  It  remained  as  large  as  before  "),  but  yet  a  size, 
or  magnitude,  in  a  far  other  than  a  proper,  special,  perceptible 
sense,  according  to  which  it  would  be  included  and  measured  by 
a  particular  place.  He  now  replies,  that  the  world  itself  is  not 
infinitum,  or  boundless ;  hence,  even  if  it  were  granted  that  the 
body  is  everywhere  present  [in  the  world],  it  would  not  logically 
follow  that  infinity  could  be  ascribed  to  it.  Moreover,  he  de- 
tected again,  in  this  objection,  the  miserable  notion  of  the  gross 
and  comprehensible  mode  of  the  divine  presence.  Opposing  to 
it  again  the  idea,  that  God  can,  at  any  rate,  hold  an  object  in  cer- 
tain places  in  more  than  one  way,  he  now  claims,  with  reference 
for  support  to  Matt,  xviii.  lo,  that  angels  can  be  at  the  same  time 
in  heaven  and  on  earth — in  heaven  before  the  face  of  God,  and 
on  earth  to  minister  to  us — but  that  we  do  not  on  that  account 
ascribe  infinity  to  them.  He  here  again  casts  upon  his  opponents 
the  reproach,  that  their  coarse  spirit  understands  nothing  of  what 
it  is  fo  be  in  heaven,  quoting  again  John  iii.  13.  And  he  now,  at 
length,  goes  so  far  as  to  exclaim  :  But  how  if  we  should  say  that 
not  only  was  Ghrist,  while  walking  on  the  earth,  at  the  same  time 
also  in  heaven,  but  that  even  we,  mortal  men  living  upon  earth, 
are  also  in  heaven,  in  so  far  as  we  believe  in  Christ?  How  silly 
would  not  such  language  seem  to  the  Fanatics  !  But  this  St.  Paul 
testifies  in  Eph.  i.  3  ;  ii.  5,  6  ;  Col.  iii.  3.  We  here  naturally  re- 
call the  assertion  met  with  in  the  Sermon  von  dem  Sacrament, 
etc. — that  the  believing  heart  is  truly  in  heaven,  being  where 
Christ  is;'  and  also  the  declaration  occurring  in  the  tract, 
Dass  diese  JVorte  Christi,  etc.,  to  the  effect  that,  if  the  Fanatics 
bind  Crod  to  His  throne  in  heaven,  then  must  we  also  sit 
there  with  Him,  since  Paul  says  in  Acts  xvii.  28  :  "  We  are  of 
His  nature,  and  in  Him  we  live,  move  and  have  our  being."  '^ 
Luther  now  explains  what  it  really  means  to  be  in  heaven : 
"  Whatever  is  in  God,  and  in  the  presence  of  God,  is  rn  heaven." 
He  holds  up  this  idea  before  the  Fanatics,  who  call  nothing 
heaven  any  more,  except  that  to  which  they  can  point  upward 

'  Supra,  p.  III.  2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx.  57. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  I4I 

with  their  fingers  and  eyes,  in  the  sky  where  the  sun  and  moon 
are  seen.  But,  inasmuch  as  God  is  in  heaven,  and  yet  His  pres- 
ence not  to  be  conceived  of  as  local,  we  should,  in  the  use  of 
such  expressions,  allow  our  thoughts  to  go  far  beyond  the  sensu- 
ous, spacial  idea  of  heaven.  But  does  it  not  logically  follow  that, 
if  Christians  are  also  in  heaven  and  in  God,  they  must,  like  Christ 
Himself,  be  omnipresent?  Zwingli  had  asserted  such  an  omni- 
presence of  believers  as  a  consequence  of  the  omnipresence  of 
Christ,  and  as  a  corollary  of  the  saying  of  Christ,  "  Where  I  am, 
there  shall  ye  also  be."  Luther  replies,  that,  although  we  shall  be 
where  Christ  is,  according  to  the  first  and  second  modes  of  pres- 
ence, we  shall  not  enjoy  that  privilege  according  to  the  third 
mode,  by  virtue  of  which  Christ  is  where  God  is  :  for  the  Scrip- 
tures place  only  Christ,  who  is  One  person  with  God,  at  tlie  right 
hand  of  God  (yet  it  does  follow  from  the  omnipresence  of  Christ 
that  we  are  where  He  is ;  just  because  He  is  everywhere.  He 
must  also  certainly  be  with  us).  In  this,  then,  we  find  the 
answer  to  our  question.  Because  we  are  in  God,  it  does  not  fol- 
low, according  to  Luther,  that  we  are  so  in  the  same  full  sense  in 
which  this  may  be  said  of  the  God- man,  Christ,  in  whose  case 
such  omnipresence,  or  presence  in  the  third,  or  repletive,  super- 
natural mode,  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence.  Because  we 
are  in  heaven,  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  we  are  also  at  the  right 
hand  of  God.  Hence,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  Luther's 
reference  to  the  presence  of  the  angels,  as  at  the  same  time  in 
heaven  and  on  earth,  does  not  piesent  a  sufficient  reply  to 
Zwingli's  conclusion,  that,  if  the  body  of  Christ  be  omnipresent, 
it  must  also  be  infinite  ;  for  what  has  just  been  said  as  to  the 
difference  between  our  being  in  heaven  and  Christ's  being  there 
applies  as  well  to  the  angels,  and  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are 
rcpletivelx  omnipresent.  The  question  may  still  be  asked,  whether 
this  mode  of  presence  peculiar  to  Christ  does  not,  after  all,  im- 
ply the  infinity  of  His  body. 

If  we  now  turn  our  attention  again  from  this  general  discussion 
of  the  omnipresence  of  Christ  and  of  His  body  to  the  special 
presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  will  be  at  once  evident  how 
completely  the  possibility  of  the  latter  has  been  guarded  against 
all  objections  by  the  thoroughness  displayed  in  the  treatment  of 
the  former.  It  was  with  this  object  in  view  that  Luther  had 
again,   as   in   the   publication   immediately  preceding    that  now 


142  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

under  review,  so  fully  and  impressively  presented  the  former 
doctrine.  It  is,  however,  mainly,  as  already  observed,  the  sec- 
ond, or  definitive  mode  of  the  presence  of  Christ,  upon  which  he 
bases  the  theory  of  the  sacramental  presence.  The  connection 
of  thought  is,  in  Luther's  mind,  as  follows  :  If  Christ  is,  like  God, 
everywhere  present.  He  can,  in  addition  to  this,  be  also  present 
in  the  mode  of  w:hich  analogies  are  seen  in  the  presence  of  finite 
spirits — angels,  devils  and  glorified  believers.  This  second  mode 
of  presence  naturally  presented  itself  as  the  one  adapted  to  the 
requirements  of  the  presence  in  the  sacrament,  since  it  likewise 
treats  of  a  presence,  although  "  incomprehensible  "  {linbegreiflieh), 
yet  in  a  special  place.  The  body  of  Christ,  according  to  Luther, 
while  omnipresent  in  the  highest,  divine  mode,  is  at  the  same 
time,  in  the  sacrament,  where  He  desires  also  to  be  "  compre- 
hended "  (grasped),  specially  present  in  the  second  mode,  which 
is  shared  with  Him  also  by  inferior  spirits. 

In  all  these  suggestions  of  Luther  as  to  the  mode  of  the  Sav- 
iour's presence,  it  must  be  expressly  borne  in  mind,  that  he  has 
no  thought  whatever  of  having  thus  circumscribed  or  exhausted 
the  possible  modes  of  the  divine  presence,  and  that  he  does  not 
seek  to  establish  upon  such  grounds  the  actual  fact  of  the  sacra- 
mental presence  ;  but  that  he  only  claims  to  have  thus  indicated, 
for  the  sake  of  those  to  whom  the  latter  appeared  irreconcilable 
with  the  continued  existence  of  Christ  in  heaven,  a  way  in  which 
the  two  conceptions  may  be  very  easily  combined.  The  real 
basis  of  faith  in  the  doctrine  remains  the  Word  of  Christ :  "  This 
is  my  body."  At  the  very  beginning  of  his  argument  for  the 
omnipresence  of  the  body,  he  refers  to  his  declaration  in  the 
tract  last  reviewed,  that  he  has  merely  sought  to  indicate  a  way 
in  which  God  can  make  it  possible  for  Christ  to  be  in  heaven, 
and  yet  His  body  at  the  same  time  in  the  sacrament  on  earth ; 
and  that  he  has  left  to  the  divine  wisdom  and  power  other  ways 
in  which  to  accomplish  the  same  object.  And  even  afterwards, 
having  spoken  at  length  of  the  "  definitive  "  presence,  he  repeats 
the  caution,  declaring  that,  with  the  evidence  that  Christ  can  be 
at  any  place  in  more  than  the  merely  local  way,  enough  has  been 
proved  to  justify  faith  in  the  words  of  institution.  Who  will  be 
so  rash  as  to  attempt  to  measure  and  circumscribe  the  power  of 
(iod,  as  though  He  did  not,  forsooth,  know  also  other  ways?  Yea, 
he  further  declares,  he  would  not  even  deny  that  a  body  might  be 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  I43 

enabled  by  the  divine  omnipotence  to  be  in  many  places  accord- 
ing to  the  first,  comprehensible,  or  local  mode ;  for  whose  vision 
has  caught  the  limit  of  the  divine  power? 

He  even  proposes,  at  last,  to  grant,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
the  claim  of  the  word-juggling  Fanatics,  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is  in  one  place  in  heaven.  He  asserts  that,  even  in  that  case,  all 
created  things  would  be  before  the  enthroned  Christ,  and  about 
Him,  like  a  clear,  transparent  air.  In  support  of  this  position, 
he  again  appeals  to  the  facts,  that  spirits  hear,  or  pass  clearly  and 
easily,  through  walls,  and  that  stones,  which  are  to  our  vision  thick 
and  dark,  are  to  them  like  glass  or  thin  air,  as  is  proved  by  evil 
spirits  and  angels,  and  by  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sealed 
stone  and  the  closed  door.  He  then  introduces  other  compari- 
sons, in  support  of  which  he  appeals  in  part  to  Laurentius  Valla 
and  to  a  line  of  argument  already  common  among  teachers  of 
the  papal  Church.  We  may  see  in  the  centre  of  a  crystal  or 
precious  stone  a  speck,  or  bubble,  which  appears  at  the  same 
time  in  all  parts  of  the  crystal,  and  which,  when  the  latter  is 
turned  about,  appears  always  immediately  before  us.  Thus,  even 
though  Christ  were  sitting  at  one  place  in  heaven,  in  the  midst  of 
all  created  things,  yet  could  God,  in  a  way  far  more  true  and 
wonderful  than  that  in  which  the  speck  in  the  crystal  appears 
before  us,  present  to  us  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  bread.  The 
single  voice,  proceeding  from  the  One  mouth  of  the  preacher, 
enters  in  a  moment  many  thousand  ears.  Much  more  would 
God  be  able  to  make  the  body  of  Christ,  although  it  were  in  but 
one  place,  yet  present  at  once  in  many  places  in  the  bread  and 
wine,  since  He  is  much  swifter  than  the  voice,  and  all  created 
things  are  much  more  penetrable  for  Him  than  for  the  voice,  as 
He  proved  in  passing  through  the  stone  of  the  sepulchre.  A 
mirror  may  be  broken  into  a  thousand  pieces,  and  yet  the  same 
complete  image  which  was  seen  in  the  entire  mirror  remain  in 
each  piece.  God,  who  makes  this  possible,  could  surely  also  so 
form  the  One  body  of  Christ  that,  although  it  were  in  one  place 
in  heaven,  yet  not  only  its  image,  but  the  body  itself,  could  be 
in  many  places  at  one  time.  To  Him  it  is  much  easier  to  pass 
into  bread  or  wine  than  for  a  countenance  to  pass  into  a  mirror, 
since  He  can  pass  through  stone  and  iron,  through  which  no 
picture,  or  countenance,  could  pass.  These  illustrations,  it  will  be 
remembered,  were  introduced  only  to  meet  the  supposed  case. 


144  'fHE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

that  the  "  notion  of  the  Fanatics  "  touching  the  existence  of 
Christ  in  heaven,  rejected  by  Luther  himself,  were  a  correct 
view.  In  meeting  this  supposition,  as  will  be  observed,  he  com- 
bines with  the  corporeal  and  comprehensible  presence  of  Christ 
at  one  place  in  heaven,  as  conceived  by  his  opponents,  also  a 
presence  in  the  second,  incomprehensible  mode,  whereby  Christ 
is  represented  as  present  in  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  sacrament. 
Meanwhile,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  he  has  not  so  definitely 
conceived  the  idea  which  illustrations  such  as  the  above  are  de- 
signed to  present  as  to  make  them  applicable  only  to  the  one 
view.  On  the  contrary,  he  dc>es  not  hesitate  to  employ  illustra- 
tions entirely  similar  in  elucidating  various  conceptions  of  the 
presence  of  Christ.  Thus,  when  illustrating  his  own  view  as  to 
the  presence  of  Christ  in  heaven,  he  applied  as  a  parallel  the 
human  vision  extending  through  a  great  stretch  of  space,'  which 
is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  the  voice  of  the  preacher  em- 
ployed above  when,  for  the  first  time,  we  have  to  do  with  a  subject 
regarded  as  occupying  one  definite  place.  Again,  the  illustration 
of  the  speck,  or  bubble,  in  the  crystal  finds  a  parallel  in  one  which 
Luther  afterwards  employs  in  explaining  his  own  view  of  the  mode 
of  Christ's  presence,  /.  e.,  the  image  of  the  sun  reflected  from  a 
pond,  which  is  but  one  image,  but  which  every  one  standing  upon 
the  bank  sees  immediately  before  him.  He  designates  this, 
indeed,  a  coarse  illustration,  but  infers  that  God  can  much  more 
devise  a  mode  of  presence  by  which  the  body  of  Christ  can  be 
everywhere  and  wherever  it  may  desire  to  be.  The  lack  of  clear 
discrimination  which  Luther  in  this  instance  displays  is  intimately 
connected  with  an  indefiniteness  in  the  apprehension  of  the  real 
physical  conditions  in  the  objects  employed  in  illustration.  In 
connection  with  the  illustration  drawn  from  a  mirror,  he  himself 
remarks,  that  he  knows  very  well  that  the  images  in  the  glass  are 
not  the  face  itself.  It  might  have  been  just  as  naturally  sug- 
gested, in  criticism  of  his  comparison  with  the  bubble  in  the 
crystal,  that  this  is  not  really  present  at  different  points,  but  is  so 
only  in  the  subjective  apprehension  of  the  person  looking  at  it — 
that  not  the  bubble  itself,  but  only  its  image,  is  so  present.  Yet 
he  there  insists  that,  if  God  can  make  so  many  images  in  a 
moment,  we  may  much  more  readily  believe  that  He  can  bring 
about  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  at  many  places. 

'  Vid.  supra,  p.  138. 


AFTER   RETIROIENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  1 45 

Luther  does  not  present  in  the  Bekentitniss  any  further  expo- 
sition of  the  idea,  that  this  body,  although  everywhere  present, 
cannot  be  everywhere  found  and  apprehended  by  us.  In  re- 
sponse to  the  charge  that,  upon  this  theory,  Christ  would  have 
bound  Himself  to  particular  places  by  His  sacramental  presence, 
he  merely  points  to  the  reply  already  given  in  the  tract  against 
the  Heavenly  Prophets. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  treats,  in  conclusion,  with  especial 
fullness  the  question,  how,  in  the  words,  "  This  is  my  body," 
which  require  us  to  believe  in  the  real  presence  of  the  body,  we 
are  to  conceive  the  relation  of  the  predieate  to  the  subject.  This 
question  has  before  been  called  to  our  attention,  particularly  in 
the  treatise  upon  the  Babylonian  Captivity  and  that  against  the 
Heavenly  Prophets.  We  recall  how  he  dealt,  in  the  former,  with 
the  axiom  quoted  in  defence  of  transubstantiation,  /.  e.,  that  one 
and  the  same  thing  must  be  presented  in  subject  .and  predicate,' 
and  in  the  latter,  appealed  to  the  rhetorical  figure,  Synecdoche? 
He  now  treats  of  the  question  under  the  caption  :  Concerning 
Identical  Predication  {de  praedicatione  identica).  He  describes 
the  question  as  one  which  properly  challenges  the  attention  of  all 
men  of  candid  mind,  which  Wickliife  discussed  most  promi- 
nently, and  with  which  all  the  universities  have  struggled.  The 
imiversities  at  length  decided  and  taught,  since  identical  predi- 
cation concerning  things  of  diverse  natures  would  be  contrary  to 
the  Scriptures  and  to  reason,  that  there  remains  no  bread  in  the 
sacrament  (no  more  recognizing  actual  bread  as  the  subject). 
Wickliffe  retained  the  bread,  but  gave  up  the  body  (placing, 
therefore,  something  else  in  the  pfrdicate).  He  now  acknowl- 
edges the  rule  of  grammar  and  logic  with  which  both  parties  set 
out.  But  he  proposes,  with  Wickliffe,  to  maintain  the  continued 
presence  of  the  bread  (although  attaching  no  great  importance 
to  it),  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  the  Sophists,  the  presence  of 
the  body.  That,  as  in  'the  Lord's  Supper,  two  diverse  objects 
(natures  :  JVesen)  should  be  one  thing — that  the  bread,  while 
remaining  bread,  should  be  also  body — appears  to  him  to  contra- 
dict the  principles  neither  of  logic  nor  of  reason.  He  appeals, 
first  of  all,  to  the  Scriptures.  In  the  Trinity  there  are  three 
different  Persons,  and  yet  each  of  these  is  the  One  God.     The 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  391.  "^  Supra,  p.  80  sq. 

10 


146  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUIHER. 

unity  of  nature  and  essence  here  niakes  it  possible  that  "  different 
persons  (should)  be  yet  pronounced  identical,  and  one  essence." 
This  is  a  natural  unity.  Of  Christ,  we  say,  "  This  man  is  the 
Son  of  God,"  although  His  humanity  still  remains,  and  although 
man  and  God  are  much  farther  removed  from  one  another  than 
bread  and  body.  It  is,  in  this  case,  the  personal  unity  which 
makes  it  possible  for  us  to  speak  of  two  different  natures  as  one 
nature.  Another  form  of  unity  lies  at  the  basis  of  such  scriptural 
declarations  as  that  He  makes  His  angels  winds  and  His  minis- 
ters flames  of  fire  (Ps.  civ.  4),  and  of  the  statement  which  we 
might  accordingly  make  of  such  a  wind  :  "  This  is  an  angel." 
We  may  call  this  a  practical  {wirkliche)  unity,  since  the  angel 
and  its  form,  the  wind,  accomplish  the  same  work.  In  the  fourth 
place,  the  holy  Evangelists  tell  us  that  the  Holy  Spirit  descended 
upon  Christ  in  the  form  of  a  dove  ;  and  hence  we  may  say,  point- 
ing to  the  dove  :  "  This  is  the  Holy  Spirit."  We  may  call  this  a 
formal  unity,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  desired  to  reveal  Himself  in 
such  a  form.  Now  why,  asks  Luther,  should  we  not  much  more, 
pointing  to  the  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  be  able  to  say : 
"  This  is  my  body,"  although  bread  and  body  are  two  different 
essences?  Here  also  a  unity  has  been  formed  out  of  two  kinds 
of  essence.  The  peculiar  unity  which  here  occurs  he  would  call 
sao'amental,  since  the  body  of  Christ  and  the  bread  are  given  to 
us  as  a  sacrament.  It  is  not,  says  he,  a  natural  or  personal  unity, 
such  as  that  between  God  and  Christ ;  is  different  perhaps,  also, 
from  that  between  the  dove  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  flame  and 
the  angel.  Yet  it  is  a  sacramental  unity.  We  can  just  as  well 
say,  pointing  to  the  bread  :  "  This  is  the  body  of  Christ,"  as  could 
John,  when  he  saw  the  dove,  have  said  that  he  saw  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Yea,  he  proceeds,  it  is,  furthermore,  even  proper  to  say 
that  he  who  lays  hold  upon  the  bread  and  crushes  it  with  his 
teeth  lays  hold  upon  and  crushes  with  his  teeth  the  body  of 
Christ,  although,  indeed,  no  one  sees,  lays  hold  of,  or  chews  this 
body,  as  we  see  and  chew  other  flesh  visibly ;  for  that  which  is 
done  to  the  bread  may  be  well  and  properly  applied  to  the  body 
of  Christ  on  account  of  the  sacramental  union.  He  justifies  the 
confession  to  which  Berangar  was  driven  by  Pope  Nicholas,  that 
he  in  the  sacrament  crushed  and  tore  with  his  teeth  the  true  body 
of  Christ,  since  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  is,  that  whoso- 
ever eats  or  bites  this  bread,  bites  that  which  is  the  true  body  of 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  I47 

Christ,  and  not  mere  bare  bread.  This  bread  is  certainly  the 
body  of  Christ,  as  the  dove  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  flame  an 
angel. 

In  the  above,  Luther  claims  to  have  shown  that  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  of  institution  as  designating  actual  bread  and 
wine  is  by  no  means  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  But 
he  is  bold  to  meet  also  the  objections  proffered  in  the  name  of 
logic.  He  demands  that  those  who  on  this  ground  take  offence 
at  the  understanding  of  the  words  which  he  advocates  shall  first 
give  some  attention  to  the  principles  of  grammar  or  rhetoric. 
Logic,  he  grants,  teaches  rightly  that  bread  and  body,  dove  and 
Spirit,  God  and  man,  are  of  different  natures.  But  it  is  author- 
ized by  the  rules  of  grammar  in  all  languages,  when  two  different 
natures  are  so  combined  as  to  become  one  nature,  to  include 
them  both  in  the  same  form  of  expression.  Thus,  we  may  say 
of  Christ :  "  He  is  God,"  or,  "  He  is  man,"  or  again,  "  The  man 
is  God,"  etc.  So,  too,  we  may  say  :  "  This  is  bread,"  or,  "  This 
is  my  body,"  or,  "  This  bread  is  my  body,"  etc.  And,  says 
Luther,  it  is  really  true  that  such  different  natures  are  truly  com- 
bined in  one,  and  that  they,  by  being  thus  joined  together,  gain  a 
new  harmonious  nature,  in  accordance  with  which  they  are  rightly 
called  one  kind  of  nature,  although  each  has  for  itself  its  own 
peculiar  nature.  When,  moreover,  Luther  now,  in  discoursing 
upon  the  praedicatio  idetitica,  refers  to  the  rules  of  rhetoric,  he 
has  in  view  the  same  figure  of  speech  of  which  he  has  before 
availed  himself,  /.  e.,  Synecdoche.  He  asserts  that  this  mode  of 
speech,  in  which  things  of  different  nature  are  spoken  of  as  one, 
is  called  Synecdoche  by  the  grammarians,  and  is  very  common, 
not  only  in  the  Scriptures,  but  in  all  languages  as  well.  He  sup- 
poses, for  example,  that  some  one  should  point  to  a  purse,  and 
say:  "This  is  five  hundred  guldens"  ;  or  that  it  should  be  said 
of  one  who  had  merely  pierced  the  hand  of  the  king's  son,  that 
he  had  pierced  the  king's  son ' — and  cites  again,  finally,  the  illus- 
tration of  the  glowing  iron,  of  which  we  say  :  "  This  is  fire,"  and, 
"  This  is  iron."  ^  Li  this  way  he  now  justifies  himself  in  main- 
taining that  the  "  identical  predication  concerning  diverse 
natures,"  or  the  maxim,   "  that   two  different  natures  may  be 

'  Cf.  supra,  p.  135,  in  the  argument  against  the  AUoeosis. 
2  Cf.  our  remark,  supra,  p.  80. 


148  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

pronounced  one  nature,"  is  allowable,  despite  Wickliffe  and  the 
Sophists.  He  can  thus  also  further  say,  as  he  does  in  the  con- 
clusion of  the  document :  "  The  pracdicatio  idcntica  does  not 
trouble  us  at  all  in  the  Lord's  Supper :  there  is  really  none  here, 
but  Wickliffe  and  the  Sophists  only  dream  so."  He  finds  no 
such  predication  in  regard  to  diverse  natures  here,  because  the 
natures,  which  are  in  themselves  diverse,  are  no  longer  so  in  view 
of  the  new  nature  which  they  have  in  their  union  become. 
"  When  they  come  together  and  become  an  entire  new  nature, 
they  then  lose  their  difference,  in  so  far  as  the  new  harmonious 
{cinig)  nature  is  concerned.  It  is  now  no  longer  mere  bread, 
but  flesh-bread,  or  body-bread ;  that  is,  bread  which  has  become 
one  sacramental  nature,  and  one  thing,  with  the  body  of  Christ. 
Likewise,  it  is  no  longer  mere  wine,  but  blood-wine ;  that  is, 
wine  which  has  come  to  be  one  sacramental  nature  with  the 
blood  of  Christ." 

The  above  are  the  principal  points  which  may  be  gleaned  from 
the  Bekenntniss,  illustrating  the  further  development  and  formu- 
lation of  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Reformer. 

He  had,  before  assailing  Zwingli's  Alhvosis,  designated,  as  the 
two  principal  points  against  which  he  had  contended  in  his 
previous  controversy  with  that  "  wild  spirit,"  the  propositions, 
that  the  sitting  of  Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God  is  irreconcilable 
with  His  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper,  and  that  flesh  profiteth 
nothing.  We  have  seen  how  he  carried  on  the  controversy  upon 
the  first  point.  Upon  the  second  he  does  not  now  enter  at  any 
greater  length,  least  of  all  upon  the  question  of  the  actual  benefit 
of  bodily  participation.  He  merely  further  fortifies,  first  against 
Zwingli,  and  then  against  Qlcolampadius,  his  exegesis  of  the 
above  utterance  of  John,  which  denied  that  Christ  had  there  any 
reference  to  His  own  flesh.  He  then  again  briefly  asserts,  that 
the  flesh  of  Christ  alone,  partaken  of  without  faith  and  the  Word, 
is,  indeed,  poison  and  death  ;  but  when  it  is  partaken  of  together 
with  the  Word  and  faith,  the  eating  of  the  flesh  is  necessary 
and  beneficial.  The  lying  spirit,  he  declares,  has  not  refuted 
his  own  little  book  in  which  this  is  proved,  but  has  only  sought 
by  lies  to  bring  it  into  discredit. 

We  must  notice,  further,  his  reply  to  the  objection  of  GLcolam- 
padius,  who  argued  from  the  very  idea  and  nature  of  a  sacrament 
that  there  must  here  be  given  a  sign  of  the  body.     He  is  pre- 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT   THE    WARTBURG.  1 49 

pared  to  grant  very  cordially  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  sacra- 
ment, although  it  is  not  so  designated  in  the  Scriptures.  He 
accepts  also  the  conception  of  a  sacrament  according  to  which 
something  is  to  be  figuratively  indicated  in  it.  He  disputes, 
however,  the  inference  that  we  must,  therefore,  take  the  words 
of  institution  themselves  figuratively.  Even  Moses,  he  argues, 
when  instituting  the  Passover,  which  is  a  figure  of  Christ,  did  not 
employ  any  words  which  were  themselves  figurative,  but  only 
plain,  clear,  simple  words ;  and  so,  likewise,  all  the  figures  of  the 
Old  Testament  are  presented  in  plain,  simple,  clear  words.  He 
pronounces  QLcolampadius  deficient  in  the  "  primary  dialectics  " 
{pucrilis  dialectica)  which  teaches  to  "  divide  rightly."  He 
himself  discriminates  as  follows:  The  sacrament,  or  event  (the 
sacramental  procedure,  or  act) ,  is  to  be  a  sign,  or  likeness — the 
passover-lamb  a  picture  of  Christ ;  circumcision,  a  picture  of  the 
death  of  the  old  Adam  ;  baptism,  a  picture  of  the  drowning  of  sin  : 
but  the  words  employed  are  to  signify  nothing  else  than  just  what 
they  express — those  speaking  of  the  passover-lamb  meaning  the 
passover-lamb,  those  speaking  of  circumcision  meaning  bodily 
circumcision,  those  speaking  of  baptism  meaning  dipping  into 
water.  The  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  must  also,  it  is  true, 
txpify  and  indicate  something ;  and  that  is,  the  unity  of  believers 
in  the  one  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  through  one  and  the  same 
spirit,  faith,  love,  cross,  etc.  :  but  the  words  of  the  sacrafnent 
must  mean  simply  what  they  express. 

Thus,  in  this  reply  of  Luther  to  CEcolampadius,  we  find  him 
again,  in  reliance  upon  the  traditional  conception  of  the  sacra- 
ment, placing  in  the  foreground  that  feature  of  the  Holy  Supper 
in  which  he  had  already  in  his  Sermon  of  A.  D.  1519,  influenced 
by  the  same  general  conception,  located  the  "  significance  "  of 
the  sacrament. 

T\\^  forgiveness  of  sins,  likewise,  although  here  only  incidentally 
entering  into  the  discussion,  receives,  as  the  gracious  gift  con- 
ferred by  the  sacrament,  the  same  acknowledgment  as  heretofore.' 

Hn  the  Utiterric/it  der  Visitatoren,  etc.,  written  by  Melanchthon,  and  re- 
vised by  I.uther,  A.  D.  1528  (Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  36),  it  is  simply  said,  in  entire 
harmony  with  the  doctrinal  views  of  LutVier  as  we  have  thus  far  constantly 
found  them  expressed  :  In  the  words  of  (he  Lord's  Supper  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  promised;  and  we  obtain  this,  not  through  the  outward  partaking 
of  the  {true,  present)  body  of  Christ,  but  through  faith,  which  is  awakened 
thiough  the  words  and  signs. 


150  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Thus,  while,  in  his  exegetical  analysis  of  the  scriptural  passages 
treating  of  the  Supper,  holding  fast  to  his  interpretation  of  the 
declaration  :  "  The  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood  "  (that 
is  :  the  cup  is  the  new  testament  because  the  blood  of  Christ  is 
in  it),  he  declares  :  The  new  testament  is  the  promise — yea,  the 
bestowal — of  grace  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  It  is  improper 
to  say  (as  does  CEcolampadius)  that  the  bare  cup  is  so  called, 
and  that  on  account  of  the  wine,  which  is  a  sign  of  the  blood  of 
Christ.  On  the  contrary,  the  cup  is  so  called  because  it  becomes 
One  sacramental  thing  with  the  blood  of  Christ  within  it,  or  with 
the  new  testament.  He  further  declares  that,  since  the  new 
testament  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  forgiveness  of  sins,  spirit,  grace, 
life  and  all  salvation  must  be  in  it ;  all  of  which  is  comprehended 
in  the  Word,  without  which  we  would  not  know  what  was  in  the 
Lord's  Supper.  He  then  presents  the  beautiful  and  wonderful 
connection  existing  between  all  the  parts  of  the  sacrament  as 
follows  :  The  words,  which  are  the  first  thing,  and  without  which 
cup  and  biead  would  be  nothing,  include  the  bread  and  the  cup 
(set  apart)  for  the  sacrament;  the  bread  and  the  cup  include 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ ;  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
include  the  new  testament;  the  new  testament  includes  the  for 
giveness  of  sins ;  the  forgiveness  of  sins  includes  eternal  life  and 
salvation.  Here,  again,  he  employs  the  mode  of  speech  of  which 
he  had  spoken  in  the  section  treating  of  the  "  identical  predica- 
tion," declaring  that,  inasmuch  as  this  is  all  One  sacramental 
procedure,  we  may  rightly  say  of  any  part  of  it,  as  of  the  cup, 
"  This  is  the  blood  of  Christ ;  this  is  the  new  testament ;  this  is 
forgiveness  of  sins,  etc.  " — just  as  we  may  point  to  the  man, 
Christ,  and  say :  "  This  is  God  ;  this  is  the  truth,  the  life,"  etc. 
It  would  carry  us  too  far  away  from  the  purpose  of  the  present 
historical  section  to  enter  into  the  consideration  of  the  separate 
terms  in  this  exegetical  analysis.  We  have  presented  the  above 
extracts  merely  to  show  how  distinctly  Luther  at  this  time  still 
assigns  the  central  place  to  \.\\Q.fo/-give?iessofsins,  as  the  gracious 
blessing  conferred  by  the  sacrament.  He  here  again  locates  this 
forgiveness  in  the  body  and  blood,  without  explaining  the  relation 
in  which  the  Word  and  the  body  stand  to  one  another  in  the  distri- 
bution. He  then  in  the  same  section,  indeed,  applies  the  idea  of 
the  sii^ii  {Zeicheti)  also  to  the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood — but 
only  with  the  general  idea  of  a  miracle  {Wunderzeicheii)  wrought 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  I51 

by  God,  without  representing  it  distinctly  as  a  sign  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins.  He  is  led  to  the  employment  of  the  term  in 
meeting  the  objection,  that  the  signs  (miracles)  of  Christ  were  on 
other  occasions  always  visible,  which  is  not  the  case  in  the  sup- 
posed miraculous  presence  of  the  body  in  the  sacrament.  But 
even  thus,  his  reply  is  not  without  interest  for  us  :  The  poor  little 
Fanatics,  indeed,  bravely  boast  that  Christ  never  performed  a 
miracle  (sign),  except  such  as  stood  out  visibly  before  men. 
Just  as  though  it  was,  for  example,  no  miracle  that  John  the  Bap- 
tist should  have  seen  the  Holy  Ghost  descend  from  heaven, 
although  the  latter  did  not  stand  out  visibly,  but  only  in  the  form 
of  the  dove.  Thus  it  is,  iadeed,  a  miracle,  that  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  in  the  sacrament,  although  not  visible.  It  is 
enough  that  we  recognize  their  presence  through  the  Word  and 
faith. 

Luther  has  not  given  in  this  Bekeiintniss,  as  he  had  not  de- 
signed to  give,  a  systematic  general  view  of  his  doctrine  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper,  in  which  all  the  points  involved  should  be  accu- 
rately and  separately  established,  and  their  connection  with  one 
another  and  with  the  general  character  of  a  sacrament  carefully 
traced.  His  immediate  concern  was  limited  to  those  chief 
points  which  appeared  to  him  to  rec^uire  a  further  exposition  and 
■defence  in  view  of  the  assaults  of  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius. 

d.    LUTHER    AT    MARBURG THE    SCHWABACH    ARTICLES. 

ERROR     IN     ONE     DOCTRINE     CORRUPTS     ALL PERSON     OF     CHRIST 

BODILY    PRESENCE. 

Steadfastly  maintaining  thus  his  own  views,  Luther  persisted 
none  the  less  tenaciously  in  his  opinion  as  to  the  entire  doctrinal 
position  and  character  of  those  who  opposed  them.  Nor  was  he 
the  man  to  be  influenced  by  any  political  considerations,  such  as 
the  necessity  of  a  confederation  against  the  power  of  the  papal 
majority,  to  modify  his  judgment,  or  to  moderate  in  the  least  his 
severity  in  the  public  expression  of  it.  In  regard  to  such  a  pro- 
loosed  union  with  adherents  of  the  Swiss  sacramental  theory,  he 
declares,  that  if  they  do  not  amend  their  doctrine  touching  the 
sacrament,  there  is  no  hope  whatever  that  they  will  remain  ortho- 
dox and  steadfast  upon  other  points ;  that  it  is  not  allowable  to 


152  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

help  defend  them  in  their  heresy.  It  is,  he  declares,  an  errone- 
ous idea,  that,  since  there  is  agreement  with  them  upon  the  other 
doctrines,  this  one  should  not  be  so  strenuously  insisted  upon ; 
rather  does  the  error  in  regard  to  this  one  doctiine  make  all  the 
others  unclean.  Whoever  denies  one  article  is  no  less  unchristian 
than  was  Arius.' 

With  unconcealed  aversion,  he  finally  allowed  himself  to  be 
brought  face  to  face  with  Zwingli  and  Qicolampadius  at  Marburg. 

The  argument  to  which  he  here  clung  without  wavering  was 
the  plain  {diirre),  clear  words  of  Christ :  ''Hoc  est  corpus  incui/i.'" 
He  makes  the  unqualified  demand,  that  we  should  be  content  to 
rest  in  what  Christ  Himself  says.  Against  that  the  devil  can 
accomplish  nothing.  We  ought  not  to  set  ourselves  up  as  above 
God's  Word,  but  to  give  Him  all  the  glory.  In  a  report  of  the 
colloquy,  which  he  prepared  for  the  Landgrave,  he  declares,  that 
the  arguments  of  the  opponents  do  not  satisfy  the  demands  of 
conscience.  He  grants  that  those  upon  the  other  side  in  the 
controversy  may  mean  well,  but  he  expresses  the  fear  that  they 
have  not  known  what  it  is  to  be  sorely  tempted  upon  the  points 
covered  by  this  doctrine.  He  at  a  later  time  asserts,  also  in 
addressing  Landgrave  Philip,  that  he  knows  very  well  that  the 
opposers  cannot  quiet  even  their  own  consciences  with  their 
trifling  formulas  and  ideas.  But  they  cannot  now  draw  back, 
since  they  have  undertaken  to  dispute  the  doctrine.^ 

The  two  chief  arguments  which  Luther  was  called  upon  to 
meet  at  Marburg,  and  which  he  found  too  weak  to  withstand  the 
force  of  the  words  uttered  by  Christ  Himself,  "Hoc  est,''  etc., 
were,  again,  that  drawn  from  John  vi.,  which  was,  in  Zwingli's 
opinion,  absolutely  conclusive  against  him,  and  the  necessity  that 
the  body  of  Christ,  being  a  true  body,  should  be  in  only  one 
place,  namely,  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  No  new  argument  of 
any  importance  was  adduced  upon  either  side.  When  Zwingli 
contended,  in  defence  of  the  second  proposition,  that  a  body,  as 
body,  must  occupy  space  and  have  spacial  dimensions,  Luther 
replied  that — according  to  philosophy — "  the  natural  heavens 
themselves,  though  so  great  a  body,  are  without  a  place  "  {^sine 

'Briefe,  iii,  466.  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  114  (A.  D.  i5:;o)  :  "If  one  link  in  the 
chain  is  broken,  the  whole  chain  is  broken;"  similarly  also  in  Comm.  ad 
Galat.,  ii,  335. 

■■^  Briefe,  "iii,  510  ;  iv,  25. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 53 

loco')}  He  rejected  the  argument,  also,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  derived,  not  from  the  Scriptures,  but  from  reason.  In 
response  to  Zwingli's  assertion,  based  upon  John  vi.,  that  Christ 
would  have  given  us  in  the  corporeal  reception  of  His  body 
something  entirely  unnecessary,  Luther  makes  the  assertion,  that 
if  the  Lord  should  offer  us  wild  crab- apples  to  eat,  we  should  not 
dare  to  ask  why  He  gave  them.  Qicolampadius  likewise  reiter- 
ated his  appeal  to  the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  which,  as  such, 
signifies  something — is  a  sign ;  but  here,  too,  the  controversy 
covered  beaten  ground  without  developing  any  new  points  of 
doctrine. 

Upon  Luther's  side,  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
formulated,  with  no  possibility  of  the  surrender  of  any  portion  of 
the  claim  thus  made,  as  follows :  "  We  believe  that  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  altar  is  a  sacrament  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  and  the  spiritual  participation  of  this  body  and  blood 
highly  necessary  for  every  Christian."  The  second  clause  of 
this  proposition,  which,  indeed,  only  reaffirmed  what  Luther  had 
elsewhere  taught,  was  evidently  added  in  such  express  terms 
with  special  reference  to  the  objection  of  the  Swiss  theologians ; 
while,  in  accepting  the  first  clause,  of  the  true  body,  they  would 
be  compelled  to  renounce  their  former  teaching.  Nothing  was 
expressly  stated  in  the  formula  as  to  the  bodily  reception  by  un- 
worthy communicants.  But  that  this  was  implied  in  the  real 
presence  of  the  true  body  was  constantly  assumed  by  Luther  as 
a  necessary  inference  throughout  his  entire  controversy  with  his 
Swiss  antagonists,  and  no  reference  was  made  by  any  one  to  the 
possibility  of  a  theory  of  the  real  presence '■^  which  should  not 
involve  this  as  a  corollary.  The  result  of  the  colloquy  was  a  fail- 
ure to  reach  an  agreement  "  whether  the  true  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  corporeally  in  the  bread  and  wine." 

Upon  the  other  points  upon  which,  in  Luther's  opinion,  the 
teaching  of  the  Sacramentarians  had  been  wrong,  and  even 
"  pestilential,"  ^  e.  g.,  upon  the  theses  concerning  baptism,  original 
sin  and  the  eternal  Word,  a  degree  of  unity  of  opinion  was 
attained  far  beyond  all  the  expectations  or  hope  of  Luther.  He 
regarded  this  as  a  pusillanimous    surrender  upon  the  part  of  his 

'  According  to  Luther's  own  report,  Briefe,  iv,  28. 

^Cf.  Swabian  Syngramma;  also  infra,  p.  155  sqq.  ^Briefe,  iv,  25,  28. 


154  1HE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

antagonists,'  who,  he  thought,  were  now  anxious  to  avoid  the 
imputation  of  having  ever  taught  any  other  doctrine. 

Their  persistence,  however,  in  holding  to  the  "  heresy  "  in 
regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper  was  to  him  a  sufficient  cause  for  the 
withholding  of  the  hand  of  fellowship.  He  insisted  :  "  You  have 
another  spirit  than  we."  He  was  willing  to  pledge  love  and 
peace  in  his  relations  with  them  only  in  so  far  as  we  owe  these 
even  to  our  enemies,  and  "  so  far  as  every  man's  conscience  may 
possibly  allow."  The  bitter  words  hitherto  spoken  and  written 
should  at  least  be  allowed  to  rest. 

In  the  Scliwabach  Articles,  of  which  those  of  Marburg  formed 
the  basis,  the  Lutheran  doctrine  received  a  still  more  definite 
expression.  These  embraced  also  the  christological  confession : 
"  That  the  Son  of  God,  true  God  and  man,  Jesus  Christ,  is  a 
single,  ifiseparable  person  (who)  suffered  for  us  men,  died, 
ascended  to  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  Lord  over 
all  creation  ;  so  that  we  are  not  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
suffered  for  us  as  the  man,  or  the  human  nature  ;  but,  since  God 
and  man  are  here  not  two  persons,  but  One  inseparable  person, 
we  are  to  teach  that  God  and  man,  or  the  Son  of  God,  truly 
suffered  for  us."  \\\  the  article  upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is 
said  :  "  That  here  is  truly  present  in  the  bread  and  in  the  wine 
the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  according  to  the  words  :  This 
is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood."  The  Augsburg  Confession  then 
confesses  this  same  true  presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood. 

3.    Negotiations  with  Bucer.      The  Wittevberg  Concord. 
Luther's  New  Assault  npon  the  Zwingliaiis. 

TETRAPOLITANA FOOD    FOR    THE    SOUL EUCER RECEFIION   BY  THE 

U^•GODLY ACQUIESCENCE     OF     UPPER     GERMANY COLLOQUY     AT 

CASSEL WITTENBERG     CONCORD "  UNWORTHY    VS.    UNGODLY  " 

THE   SWISS    FAIL  TO  APPROVE CONCILIATORY  ATTITUDE  OF  LUTHER 

COLOGNE    CONSTITUTION LUTHER    AROUSED SEVEN    FANATICAL 

SPIRITS MELANCHTHON,  BUCER    AND    CALVIN WARNING  TO  BOHE- 
MIANS  DENUNCIATION    OF    ZWINGLIANISM. 

Luther  and  Zwingli  themselves  took  no  further  steps  to  secure 
an  approximation  in  their  distinctive  views.     Zwingli's  concep- 

^Briefe,  lii,  511,  516;  iv,  29. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  155 

tion  of  the  sacrament,  as  advanced  by  him  again  in  his  Fidei 
ratio  ad  Carolum  impeiator  and  in  his  Letter  to  the  German 
P)-inces  Assembled  at  Augsburg  in  ijjo,  continued  to  be  such 
that  we  cannot  be  surprised  if  Luther  persisted  in  classifying  it 
as  essentially  in  harmony  with  that  of  Carlstadt.  He  not  only 
substitutes  the  merely  spiritual  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  for 
the  bodily,  but  he  persists,  also,  in  locating  the  essential  character 
of  the  celebration  in  the  act  of  confession  and  thanksgiving  upon 
the  part  of  the  communicant,  instead  of  in  the  reception  of  the 
gift  from  above.  The  communicants  should  give  thanks  while 
they  themselves,  in  their  devout  contemplation,  set  before  them- 
selves as  present  the  flesh  which  Christ  assumed  and  in  which  He 
suffered,^  Luther  beheld  in  this  the  same  mode  of  conception 
as  that  against  which  he  had,  in  his  book  against  the  Heavenly 
Prophets,  objected  upon  the  ground  that  the  Christian  must  in 
such  case  again  torture  and  distress  himself  anew  with  his  own 
works,  that  is,  with  the  enkindling  and  stimulating  of  his  own 
devotions. 

In  the  Confession  of  the  Four  Cities  (the  Tetrapolitana,  also 
presented  at  Augsburg),  which  could  not  accept  the  confession 
of  the  Lutherans  on  account  of  the  Eleventh  Artiele,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  presented  as  follows  :  "  Christ  deigns  to 
give  through  the  sacraments  to  all  who  have  sincerely  enlisted 
among  His  disciples,  when  they  repeat  that  meal  as  He  has  insti- 
tuted it.  His  true  {verui?i)  body  and  his  true  {I'eruni)  blood 
truly  {vere)  to  eat  and  to  drink  as  food  and  wine  for  their  souls, 
by  which  they  shall  be  nourished  unto  eternal  life,  so  that  now 
He  may  live  and  abide  in  them  and  they  in  Him,"  etc.  The 
caution  is  expressly  given,  that  the  subscribers  of  this  confession 
do  not  wish  to  be  represented  as  "  administering  nothing  but 
mere  bread  and  mere  wine  at  our  Suppers."  ^  The  Cities  declare 
further,  that  their  preachers  diligently  endeavor  to  turn  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people  away  from  the  strife  and  the  superfluous  and 
prying  questions  upon  this  subject  to  that  which  alone  is  profit- 
able and  which  Christ  had  in  view.     "  For  as,  fed  upon   Him, 

'Cf.  in  the  Fidei  Ratio,  Artt.  VII.  and  VIII.  In  the  Letter  sent  to  Augs- 
burg, especially  the  summarizing  sentence:  "In  the  Eucharist  the  essential 
thing  (res)  is  the  giving  of  thanks  in  faith  for  the  Christ  given  us  from  God, 
but  the  Sacrament  (==  sign)  is  the  dispensing  of  the  bread,  etc." 

^  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  Cap.  XVIII. 


156  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

we  live  in  Kim  and  by  Him — and  are  also  all  among  our- 
selves one  bread,  one  body,"  etc.  Thus,  there  here  still  remains 
the  idea,  so  contrary  to  Luther's  position,  i.  e.,  the  description 
of  the  blessing  (gift)  of  the  sacrament  as  merely  food  for  the  soul. 
But  the  attempt  to  adopt,  as  far  as  possible,  the  Lutheran  propo- 
sitions as  presented  at  Marburg  is  very  manifest,  especially  in  the 
designation  of  the  body  as  the  "  true  "  body.  And  it  is  particu- 
larly noticeable,  that  the  emphasis  here,  as  by  Luther  himself, 
appears  to  be  laid  upon  the  dispensing  of  an  objective  divine 
gift  in  the  sacrament,  and  a  corresponding  receptivity  upon  the 
part  of  the  communicant.  In  its  view,  that  the  nourishment 
received  in  the  sacrament,  which  is  conceived  as  a  nourishment 
merely  of  the  soul,  is  the  principal  thing,  the  Confession  is  most 
nearly  related  to  the  Swabian  Syngraninia.  The  observation, 
that  the  subscribers  endeavor  to  restrain  their  congregations  from 
engaging  in  unprofitable  questions,  recalls  Luther's  vigorous  pro- 
test against  a  similar  plea  in  his  above-mentioned  letter  sent  to 
Strassburg  in  A.  D.  1525.^ 

The  foremost  theologian  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  this 
Confession  was  Bucer,  at  Strassburg,  who  had  already  in  the  former 
year  taken  a  decided  stand  upon  the  side  of  the  Swiss  theologians, 
and  who  was  from  this  time  forward  unwearied  in  his  efforts  to 
bring  about  a  reconciliation. 

Luther  at  first  held  austerely  aloof,  being  very  loath  to  place 
confidence  in  the  self-constituted  mediator.  So  late  as  Septem- 
ber nth,  he  writes  to  Melanchthon,  that  he  does  not  propose  to 
answer  Bucer  (who  had  addressed  him),  and  that  he  does  not 
trust  the  treacherous  embraces  of  these  people.  Their  previous 
teaching  has  not  corresponded  with  their  present  professions,  and 
yet  they  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  fact,  and  manifest  no  repent- 
ance.2 

Nevertheless,  Bucer  now  succeeded  in  securing  an  audience 
with  Luther  at  Cobuig,  in  the  course  of  which  the  latter  was 
moved  by  a  profound  and  heart-felt  desire  for  unity  among  the 
adherents  of  the  Gospel,  which  overpowered  all  the  obstacles 
interposed  by  his  zeal  against  heresy  and  his  fears  of  treachery. 
He  was  thus  led  to  assure  Bucer  of  his  earnest  wish  that  the 
schism  might  be  remedied.* 

'  Supra,  p.  loi.  2  3rjefe^  jy^  i52.  3Ibid.,2i7. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  157 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Bucer  in  the  following  January,  he 
expressed  his  delight  at  the  agreement  of  the  Coii/essioti,  in  one 
important  proposition,  with  his  own  teaching.  We  both,  says 
he,  confess  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  are  offered  with  the  words  as  food  for 
the  soul.  He  expresses  his  surprise,  however,  that  Bucer  should 
refer  to  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius  as  endorsing  this  view.  But 
he  is  still  more  astonished,  that  Bucer  should  be  unwilling  to 
recognize  the  bodily  reception  also  as  affording  food  for  the  soul. 
If  the  presentation  of  the  body  of  Christ  as  food  for  the  soul  be 
acknowledged,  and  if  there  be  no  reason  for  refusing  to  regard 
such  presentation  as  made  even  to  the  ungodly  communicants, 
although  the  latter  do  not  receive  that  which  is,  thus  offered,  why 
then  should  any  one  be  unwilling  to  confess  that  the  body  is  also 
tendered  with  the  bread  externally  to  the  mouth,  and  to  the 
mouth  alike  of  the  pious  and  of  the  ungodly?  The  presence  and 
proffer  of  the  body  in  many  places  at  once  (that  chief  stumbling- 
stone  of  the  Zwinglians)  has  evidently  been  already  fully  granted 
in  the  acceptance  of  the  view  that  the  body  is  presented  to  each 
individual  soul.  Yet,  so  long  as  the  point  still  in  dispute  is  not 
yielded  by  the  opposite  party,  Luther  feels  himself,  on  conscien- 
tious grounds,  unable  to  profess  full  accord  with  them.  Such  a 
course,  he  fears,  would  but  occasion  yet  more  serious  schism  and 
disturbance ;  and,  despite  the  concessions  made  upon  the  other 
side,  he  still  contends  that  in  their  celebration  of  the  sacrament 
only  bread  and  wine  are  received,  and  that,  for  this  reason,  an 
altar-fellowship,  based  upon  such  a  profession  of  harmony  as  was 
proposed,  would  be  inadmissible.  He  writes  to  this  effect  to 
Bucer  himself,  and  shortly  afterward,  in  still  more  decided  terms, 
to  Duke  Ernst  at  Liineburg,  as  follows :  "  There  would  thus 
originate  the  insufferable  wrong,  that  our  people  (communing 
with  others)  would  receive  mere  bread  and  wine,  and  yet  believe 
that  these  were  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  their  people 
would  receive  with  us  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  yet 
believe  that  these  were  mere  bread  and  wine."  He  proposes, 
therefore,  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  matter  for  a  time, 
hoping  that  the  grace  of  God  may  open  the  way  for  further 
advancement.  He  repeats  with  the  greatest  emphasis  the  assur- 
ance, given  at  Coburg,  of  his  earnest  desire  for  unity.  He  desires 
it,  he  declares,  though  its  price  should  be  the  forfeiting  of  his 


158  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

own  life  thrice  over ;  for  he  well  knows  how  the  cause  of  the 
Gospel  has  suffered  from  the  dissensions  among  its  adherents, 
and  that,  had  it  not  been  for  these,  the  gates  of  hell,  the  entire 
Papacy,  the  Turks,  the  world,  the  flesh  and  all  the  powers  of  evil 
could  not  have  wrought  such  injury.' 

Other  letters  of  Luther,  addressed  to  various  parties,  bear 
evidence  to  the  sincerity  of  his  desire  for  peace  and  of  his 
delight  in  any  indications  pointing  in  that  direction — and,  none 
the  less,  to  the  firmness  of  his  resolution  to  maintain  the  positive 
stand  which  he  had  taken.  Thus  he  says,  in  relation  to  the 
reception  of  the  body  by  the  ungodly,  in  a  letter  to  the  Elector 
John  :  These  men  must  certainly  believe  that  the  devil  led  Christ 
bodily  to  the  temple  and  up  upon  the  high  mountain,  and  that 
the  Jews  laid  violent  hands  upon  Him  and  crucified  Him ;  and 
they  must  also  confess  that  an  ungodly  man  hears  the  true  Word 
of  God.  He  wishes  also  to  be  fully  assured,  before  proceeding 
farther,  in  how  far  the  hopes  which  Bucer  expressed  in  regard  to 
the  position  of  other  Zwinglians  were  justified  by  the  facts  in  the 
case,  and  whether  or  no  tlie  positions  conceded  at  Coburg  were 
publicly  maintained  by  the  latter  before  their  congregations. 
Bucer  himself,  as  Luther  now  reports,  was  not  disinclined,  even 
during  the  colloquy  at  Coburg,  to  grant  the  bodily  presence  as 
related  to  the  ungodly.'^  He  expressed  himself  as  early  as  Feb- 
ruary 5  th,  before  the  receipt  of  Luther's  letter,  in  writing  to  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse,  as  acknowledging,  with  his  colleagues  in  the 
ministerial  office,  that  since  Christ  is  truly  present  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  He  is  present  also  in  the  Word  and  in  our  mouth. 
Touching  the  reception  of  the  body  by  the  unbelieving,  he  de- 
clares that  we  ought  not  to  declare  against  it  on  any  ground  that 
would  imply  the  measuring  of  the  promise  of  Christ  by  the  faith 
of  men  f  but  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  some  infer  from  the  very 
words  of  institution  themselves  that  the  actual  bestowal  of  the 
body  is  promised  only  to  those  true  disciples  who  are  also  par- 

iBriefe,  iv,  216  sq.,  219. 

"Yet  Bucer  had  at  that  time  already,  as  in  1536,  at  Wittenberg  (vid. 
p.  168),  made  some  reservations  based  on  the  dittereiice  between  unworthy 
guests  and  total  unbelievers.  Cf.  Luther's  statement  at  Wittenberg,  Walch, 
xvii,  2538. 

"In  this  sense,  evidently,  we  are  to  understand  his  words,  pronounced 
♦'dark"  by  Luther  in  Briefe,  iv,  237  sq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURG.  159 

takers  of  the  new  covenant  secured  through  the  blood  of  Christ. 
Luther  regarded  this  letter  of  Bucer  as  a  most  important  step  in 
the  direction  of  harmony,  declaring  :  If  they  grant  that  Christ  is 
not  alone  present  to  the  soul,  but  that  His  body  is  also  truly 
present  with  the  sign  of  the  bread,  they  thereby  grant  to  the  sac- 
rament its  true  and  fitting  peculiarity.  At  the  same  time,  he 
desired  a  suspension,  for  the  immediate  present,  of  the  disputa- 
tion as  to  what  the  ungodly  receive  at  the  communion.  Shortly 
afterward,  Luther  and  Melanchthon  received  a  communication 
from  Bucer,  in  which  he  for  his  part,  as  Luther  reports,  professed 
himself  ready  to  subscribe  the  statement  that  "  the  body  of  Christ 
*  *  *  is  both  proffered  by  the  hand  of  the  ungodly  and  taken 
by  their  mouth"  (^impioruin  manu  porrigi  et  ore  sumi :  the 
ivipiorum  being  here  evidently  designed  to  qualify  also  ore). 
The  others  upon  -his  side  conceded  that  the  body  is  in  the  sacra- 
ment in  a  corporeal  presence,  and  is  thus  proffered,  but  still 
insisted  that  this  is  the  case  only  for  believing  and  pious  com- 
municants.' 

At  the  convention  of  the  Smalcald  League  at  Schweinfurt  in 
April,  1532,  the  cities  of  Upper  (Southern)  Germany,  led  by  Strass- 
burg,  formally  adopted  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  acceptance  of 
which  was  demanded  as  a  condition  of  membership  in  the  League. 
They  declared,  as  Bucer  testified  in  a  report  sent  to  Strassburg, 
that  they  accepted  this  confession  together  with  their  own, 
because  both  agree  in  the  matter  under  discussion.  At  the  same 
time,  they  deplored. the  stubbornness  of  the  Swiss,  some  of  whom, 
including  Zwingli  (who  died  October  ii,  153 1),  had  never  been 
willing  to  adopt  the  formula  of  Bucer,  with  its  acknowledgment 
of  the  "  true  body." 

Bucer  now  employed  all  his  skill  (vainly,  indeed,  at  the  time) 
in  the  attempt  to  win  over  the  Swiss  to  a  basis  of  reconciliation. 
As  he  had,  in  his  intercourse  with  Luther,  interpreted  the  Tetra- 
politan  Confession  in  as  Lutheran  a  sense  as  was  possible,  so  he 
now  sought,  by  his  explanations  of  Luther's  position,  to  remove 
as  far  as  possible  the  appearance  of  harshness  which  marked  the 
latter  in  the  apprehension  of  the  Swiss.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
us  to  follow  more  closely  the  course  of  his  efforts  in  this  direction. 
They  are  of  present  interest  to  us  only  as  indicating  how  he  thus 

'Briefe,  iv,  218  sq.,  223,  224,  327  sq.,  236. 


l6o  THE  THEOLOGY  OK  LUTHER. 

made  it  possible  for  Luther,  at  least  for  a  time,  to  maintain  a 
friendly  attitude  even  toward  the  stronghold  of  those  sacramen- 
tarian  teachings  which  he  regarded  with  so  much  aversion. 

There  has  been  preserved  for  us  no  expression  of  Luther's  own 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  signing  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  by 
the  Strassburg  leaders.  It  seemed,  however,  as  though  a  suspicion 
that,  under  this  apparent  concord,  the  old  Zwinglianism  might 
still  linger  at  least  here  and  there,  and  might  even  bring  upon 
himself  the  reproach  of  tolerating  its  errors,  would  now  impel 
him  to  new  and  yet  stronger  public  declarations  against  it.  He 
thus,  in  1532,  perhaps  at  the  very  time  of  the  convention  at 
Schweinfurt,  warned  Duke  Albrecht  of  Prussia  with  all  his  old- 
time  energy  against  the  "  Fanatics "  and  their  sacramental 
theories.  He  employed  the  most  offensive  and  condemnatory 
language  possible  in  reference  to  the  fallen  Zwingli,  declaring  that 
he  was  no  martyr,  but  that  the  rod  of  God's  anger  had  fallen 
upon  the  Zwinglians,  as  upon  the  followers  of  Mtinzer,  who  even 
yet  refused  to  repent  of  their  errors.  He  expresses  his  deep 
regret,  that  the  victorious  cantons  have  suffered  the  Zwinglian 
doctrines  to  stand  in  their  agreement  side  by  side,  as  they  say, 
with  their  old,  unassailable  confession.  Especially  noticeable,  in 
this  letter,  is  the  appeal  of  the  Reformer,  in  support  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  bodily  presence,  to  the  alleged  fact  that,  as  it  rests 
upon  the  clear  words  of  Christ,  so  has  it  also  hitherto  been  the 
constaiit  and  harmonious  uniTcrsal  faith  of  Christendom.  "It 
is,"  he  affirms,  "  a  dangerous  and  alarming  thing  to  listen  to  or 
believe  anything  contrary  to  the  harmonious  testimony,  faith  and 
doctrine  of  the  entire  holy  Christian  Church,  maintained  harmo- 
niously from  the  beginning,  /.  e.,  for  now  more  than  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  throughout  all  the  world."  We  recall  his  similar 
appeal  in  1528,  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  to  the  universal 
testimony  of  the  Church.'  In  the  same  spirit,  we  find  him 
in  December  warning  the  council  of  the  city  of  Miinster  against 
the  subtilty  of  the  devil,  by  which  so  many  preachers  of  the  pure 
Word  have  already  been  induced  to  forsake  the  truth  and  have 
become  Zwinglian,  Miinzer-ish  or  Anabaptistic.'"'  In  the  following 
year,  while  Bucer  was  actively  engaged  in  his  efforts  to  conciliate 
the  Swiss,  Luther  published  his  letter  of  warning  to  the  believers 

'Briefe,  iv,  348  sqq.     Supra,  p.  53  sq.  'Ibid.,  425. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTEURG.  l6l 

in  Frankfort  on  the  Main,  cautioning  them  against  the  doctrine 
of  Zwingli.'  In  this  communication,  he  makes  very  special  men- 
tion of  those  who  now  give  another  explanation  of  their  words, 
whilst  maintaining  their  former  opinions  as  to  the  bread  and  wine 
— who  say  that  Christ  is  spiritually,  and  yet  not  corporeally,  pres- 
ent in  the  sacrament — who  teach  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  the 
ordinary  Christian  to  know  how  Christ's  body  is  in  the  sacra- 
ment, but  only  to  believe  that  it  is  the  body  which  Christ  meant 
to  designate — although  it  is  not  sufficient  for  us  in  our  faith  in 
Christ,  the  true  God,  to  believe  that  He  is  the  God  meant  by 
Christ,  and  although  every  pious  person  must  inquire  what  it  is 
that  is  given  to  him.  He  here  again  repeats  the  statement,  that, 
where  the  former  opinion  still  lingers  among  these  people,  nothing 
is  really  offered  but  bread  and  wine,  and  nothing  more  is  received 
by  any  of  the  guests ;  so  that  the  ordinary  believer  approaches 
the  sacrament,  as  thus  administered,  in  the  faith  that  the  presence 
of  the  body  is  being  rightly  taught,  and  receives,  after  all,  only 
bread  and  wine.  He  esteems  the  preacher  who  is  responsible 
for  such  a  delusion  as  a  real  arch-fiend.  He  was  horrified  to 
hear  it  proclaimed  that  both  parties  should  come  to  the  one  altar 
to  receive  the  one  sacrament,  and  that  every  one  would  be  per- 
mitted to  cherish  the  idea  that  he  was  receiving  the  one  sacra- 
ment, each  according  to  his  faith.  He  charged  such  a  course 
particularly  and  publicly  upon  the  ministers  at  Augsburg,  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  the  burgomaster  and  council  of  that  city.'^ 
Even  his  own  publication  of  A.  D.  1533,  Von  der  Wmkelmesse 
i/iid  Pfaffcmveihe,  which  discredited  the  presence  of  the  body 
in  the  private  masses  celebrated  in  disregard  of  Christ's  own 
appointment,^  was  interpreted  by  many  as  indicating  that  he  Avas 
in  sympathy  with  the  Sacramentarians,  or  would  in  time  be 
found  in  harmony  with  them.  This  led  him  to  issue,  in  1534, 
his  Brief  von  seinem  Buck  dcr  Winkclmcsscn,  in  order  to  testify 
that  he  "  has  not  now,  nor  will  to  all  eternity  have,  anything 
to  do  with  the  erroneous  teaching  of  Carlstadt,  Zwingli  and 
their  associates."  With  all  possible  distinctness,  he  declares : 
There  is  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  when  celebrated  according  to  the 
ordinance  of  Christ,  even  under  the  Papacy  or  among  the  Greeks, 
etc.,  not  a  spiritual  or  imaginary,  but  the  true,  proper,  natural 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  294-313.  ^  Briefe,  vi,  145  sq.  ^  Vol.  I.,  p.  459. 

II 


1 62  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

body  of  Christ,  conceived  by  Mary  through  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
now  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  and  sinners  and  unworthy 
guests  also  receive  this  (body)  truly  and  corporeally.' 

Under  these  circumstances,  Bucer  not  only  found  himself  called 
to  further  labors  in  Switzerland,  where,  under  pressure  of  the 
necessity  for  a  defensive  combination  with  the  Lutherans  against 
common  outward  enemies,  a  yielding  disposition  was  becoming 
manifest  in  ever-widening  circles,  but  he  was  compelled  also  to 
overcome  the  aversion  and  suspicions  entertained  by  Luther 
against  even  such  as  had,  upon  their  part,  taken  all  the  steps 
above  indicated  toward  reconciliation.  The  large  measure  of 
success  which  attended  the  latter  effort  became  the  means  of 
producing  one  of  the  most  remarkable  crises  in  the  history  of  the 
German  Reformer. 

In  the  autumn  of  1534,  Landgrave  Philip  again  earnestly 
urged  upon  Luther  that  an  effort  be  made  to  secure  "  permanent 
harmony  "  with  the  ministers  of  Upper  Germany.  Luther  again 
protests  that  he  would  be  most  heartily  glad  if  such  harmony 
could  be  attained,  and  that  he  will,  upon  his  part,  make  all  con- 
cessions which  his  conscience  will  allow.  But  he  approaches  with 
reluctance  the  undertaking,  which  not  he,  but  others  have 
originated.  It  appears  to  him  that  but  few  of  the  preachers  of 
the  other  party  really  follow  Bucer ;  and  he  fears  that,  instead 
of  a  permanent,  only  an  essentially  temporary  and  insecure  coali- 
tion will  be  effected.''  With  such  misgivings,  he  consents  to  the 
departure  of  Melanchthon,  in  the  latter  part  of  December,  to 
participate  in  deliberations  with  Bucer  at  Cassel.  He  confessed 
to  Justus  Jonas  at  the  time  that  the  journey  appeared  to  him  an 
utterly  us'eless  one ;  that  the  more  he  thought  about  the  matter, 
the  more  aversion  he  felt  toward  this  hopeless  attempt  at  con- 
cord, since  the  other  party  were  so  unsettled  even  among  them- 
selves ;  and  that  he,  for  his  part,  could  not  swerve  from  his 
position,  even  though  the  world  should  crumble  in  ruins,  etc. 
The  letter  of  advice  which  he  prepared  for  the  occasion  is  written 
in  a  conciliatory  spirit.  He  again  gives  assurance  that  he  would 
gladly,  if  it  were  possible,  banish  dissension  at  the  cost  of  his  own 
body  and  blood.     He  concedes  that  the  men  who  advocate  the 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  378  sqq. 

''October  17,  1534:     Briefe,  iv,  559. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT   AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 63 

principles  which  he  opposes  may  be  held  to  their  opinions  ly 
conscientious  conviction,  and  he  agrees,  therefore,  to  exeicise 
patience  toward  them — a  patience  and  mildness  of  judgment 
which  are  in  striking  contrast  with  the  spirit  in  which  he  had 
met  overtures  of  peace  at  Marburg.  In  the  real  matter  in  hand, 
however,  he  does  not  retreat  a  single  step.  He  declares  at  the 
outset  that  it  is  an  entirely  inadmissible  expedient  to  assume,  for 
the  sake  of  smoothing  the  way  to  reconciliation,  that  both  parties 
have  hithertD  failed  to  properly  understand  one  another.  He 
also  pronounces  utterly  impracticable  the  proposed  compromise, 
that  the  party  which  had  hitherto  regarded  the  sacrament  as  a 
mere  sign  shall  now  concede  the  presence  of  the  true  body  in 
connection  with  the  bread,  whilst  the  other  party  should  speajc 
of  the  bread  alone  as  being  eaten.  By  such  a  course — to  say 
nothing  of  the  protest  of  conscience  agamst  such  a  subterfuge — 
occasion  would  only  be  furnished  to  the  people  for  the  discussion 
of  countless  new  questions  and  the  harboring  of  strange  thoughts, 
until  they  should  at  length  believe  nothing  at  all.  In  support  of 
his  own  doctrine,  he  appeals  again  to  the  clear  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, to  the  utterances  of  the  Fathers,  and  especially,  as  before, 
to  the  fact,  "  that  it  is  very  dangerous  to  infer  that  all  Christen- 
dom was  through  so  many  centuries  without  a  true  understanding 
of  the  sacrament,  inasmuch  as  we  all  acknowledge  that  the  sacra- 
ments and  the  Word,  although  covered  over  with  many  abomina- 
ble practices,  have  nevertheless  been  preserved."  Summarizing 
his  own  opinion  in  the  conclusion,  he  asserts,  in  language  similar 
to  that  of  his  Confession  of  if  28 :  "  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
truly  eaten  in  and  with  the  bread,  and  that,  therefore,  whatever 
the  bread  effects  or  undergoes,  the  body  of  Christ  effects  and 
undergoes — that  it  is  distributed,  eaten  and  crushed  with  the 
teeth."  In  another  brief  statement  of  his  view,  doubtless  origi- 
nating in  the  same  period,  he  makes  use  of  the  expression,  that 
the  body  is  present  "  substantially  and  essentially  "  {substantialiter 
unci  tvesentUcJi),  in  opposition  to  the  theory  that  it  is  only  "vir- 
tually and  effectively  "  {tnrfualitcj'  et  effective)  present.  He 
represents  it  as  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  opposing  party, 
that  the  body  of  Christ  can  be  present  at  any  place  only  "  locally, 
spacially,  according  to  breadth  and  length,"  whereas  it  can,  in 
truth,  be  present  also  in  other  ways,  and  thus  at  the  same  time  in 
various  places.     He,  further,  expressly  asserts   this  presence  in 


164  THE  THEOLOGV  OF  LUTHER. 

the  sacrament  to  be  designed  for  the  reception  also  of  the  un- 
godly. As  to  the  question,  whether,  in  view  of  this  conflict  of 
opinions,  any  conciliation  could  be  regarded  as  attainable,  we  infer 
it  to  have  been  at  that  time  his  own  feeling  and  opinion,  that, 
although  this  was  not  to  be  hoped  for,  both  parties  should  yet 
conduct  themselves  toward  one  another  in  a  spirit  of  love,  which, 
while  not  ignoring  the  doctrinal  differences,  should  yet  at  least 
recognize  the  honest  intentions  of  opponents.  As  he  pledges 
himself  to  the  exercise  of  such  consideration  toward  the  other 
party,  he  expects  to  enjoy  it  also  at  their  hands.  He,  too, 
claims  to  be  in  good  conscience  bound  to  his  convictions ;  and 
they  should,  therefore,  also  bear  with  him  when  they  cannot 
share  his  views,'  That  Bucer  and  the  other  ministers  should 
concur  in  the  positions  taken  in  this  letter  of  advice  without 
demurring,  far  exceeded  the  expectations  of  Luther.  They  not 
only  proclaimed  their  purpose  to  teach  in  accordance  with  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  but  they  even  accepted  the  declarations, 
that  the  body  of  Christ  is  truly  and  esscntiaUx  offered,  received 
and  eaten  in  the  bread.  Bucer  added,  indeed,  the  word  of 
caution,  that  no  commingling  of  the  essence  of  bread  and  body 
dare  here  be  thought  of,  but  only  a  sacramental  combination  : 
and  he  allayed  the  apprehension  which  Luther's  proposition, 
that  the  body  undergoes  whatever  the  bread  undergoes,was  calcu- 
lated to  awaken,  by  the  explanation,  that  the  body  does  not, 
therefore,  become  food  for  the  stomach,  but  that  the  statements 
thus  made  have  reference  to  the  bread  sacramentally  united  with 
the  body  (and  are  only  on  account  of  this  union  applied  in  our 
speech  also  to  the  body).  In  support  of  these  explanations,  he 
was  able  to  appeal  to  language  employed  by  Luther. himself  when 
speaking  of  the  sacramental  union.^  The  special  question  as  to 
the  reception  of  the  body  by  the  unbelieving  was  not  brought 
into  the  discussion  at  Cassel. 

^Briefe,  iv,  569-574.  How  firmly  he,  on  the  other  hand,  persisted  in  his 
condemnation  of  those  who  denied_  the  real  presence  and  even  of  those  who 
merely  regarded  the  doctrine  as  uncertain,  and  how  he  opposed  to  every  argu- 
ment based  on  the  supposed  obligation  of  love  the  supreme  claims  of  faith 
and  the  Word,  may  be  seen  especially  in  his  Commentary  upon  Galatians, 
which  appeared  in  1535.  Cf.  particularly  in  the  latter  work,  vol.  ii,  pp,  334- 
340. 

2  Walch,  xvii,  2492  sq.  Cf  also  the  exposition  of  the  Augsburg  ministers, 
A.  D.  1533,  given  in  Walch,  xvii., 2472. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  165 

These  surprisingly  favorable  results  now  produced  another  revo- 
lution in  the  attitude  of  Luther.  He  surrenders  not  a  single 
point  of  his  own  convictions,  and  he  remains  very  suspicious  of 
the  attempt  to  completely  assimilate  the  opposite  forces.  Yet, 
even  in  his  own  mind,  that  which  had  heretofore  been  little 
more  than  a  mere  wish,  now  becomes  an  earnest,  joyous,  vigorous 
hope  :  and  in  the  expectation  that  the  path  now  honestly  chosen 
by  the  theologians  of  Upper  Germany  would  of  itself  lead  them 
on  to  the  acceptance  of  the  full  truth  as  maintained  by  himself, 
he  refrains  from  continuously  and  uniformly  urgii>g  the  latter 
upon  them  in  all  its  rigor.  He  even  himself  undertakes  to  modify 
the  zeal  and  allay  the  suspicions  against  their  recent  opponents 
in  which  many  of  his  own  associates,  as  in  particular  Amsdorf, 
now  surpassed  their  leader. 

In  the  latter  part  of  January,  1535",  he  declares,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Landgrave  and  in  a  formal  statement  of  his  opinion,'  that  he 
confidently  hopes  that  there  are  many  among  them  who  are  per- 
fectly sincere,  and  that  he  is,  therefore,  the  more  inclined  to  a 
reconciliation ;  that  he  cannot  reject  the  concord  which  they 
have  established  by  their  acceptance  of  the  Confession  and  the 
Apology ;  and  that  he  can  find  no  occasion  at  this  time  to  criti- 
cise the  language  of  their  present  confession,  /.  <?.,  that  the  body 
of  Christ  is  essentially  dispensed  and  eaten,  provided  they  heartily 
accept  what  this  language  involves.  In  their  adoption  of  it  he 
thinks  sufficient  progress  has  been  made  in  the  direction  of  unity, 
until  God  shall  open  the  way  for  further  advances.  Not  all  the 
adherents  of  either  party  have  yet  been  consulted,  and  upon  his 
own  side  many  are  slow  to  believe  that  the  others  really  mean 
what  they  say.  It  will  be  well  to  allow  an  opportunity  for  the 
troubled  waters  to  settle  on  both  sides.  He  promises  that,  if  he 
himself  can  do  or  suffer  anything  for  the  completion  of  the  work 
thus  begun,  he  shall  not  be  found  wanting.  In  regard  to  the 
actual  questions  in  contioversy,  we  cannot  fail  to  note  that  he 
declares  only  that  he  finds  nothing  to  criticise  "  at  this  time  "  in 
the  language  of  the  other  party,  thus  indicating  plainly  enough 
that  he  does  not  as  yet  find  the  whole  truth  confessed  by  them. 

During  the  following  summer  and  the  succeeding  months,  he 
frequently  sent  kind,  encouraging  and  hopeful  letters  to  Strass- 

1  Briefe,  iv,  587  sqq. 


1 66  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

burg,  Augsburg,  Ulm  and  Esslingen.^  To  the  ministers  at  Augs- 
burg, for  example,  he  writes  that,  in  the  entire  progress  of  the 
evangelical  revival,  nothing  has  occurred  to  give  him  greater  joy 
than  that,  after  the  sad  alienation,  he  is  at  length  enabled  to 
hope  for — yea,  even  to  see — an  honest  harmony  among  the  adher- 
ents of  the  Gospel ;  that  he  will  gladly  undertake  anything  that 
may  lie  in  his  power  to  firmly  establish  such  concord ;  and  that, 
should  success  crown  the  movement,  he  will  then  sing  through 
tears  of  joy  :  Lord,  now  lettest  Thou  Thy  servant  depart  in  peace. 
In  other  connections  also  he  now  frequently  refers  to  the  prospect 
of  an  early  departure,  and  expresses  the  earnest  desire  that  he 
may  first  be  permitted  to  see  peace  restored  to  the  Church  and 
may  dien  close  his  eyes  in  the  midst  of  love  and  spiritual  harmony. 

The  most  positive  expression  of  the  Reformer's  willingness  to 
make  concessions,  and  even  to  overlook  any  differences  yet 
remaining,  is  found  in  a  communication,  addressed  also  to  the 
Friends  at  Augsburg,  under  date  of  October  5  th  of  the  same 
year.  He  here  proposes  a  convention  for  the  express  purpose  : 
"  in  order  that  we  may  learn  to  know  one  another  thoroughly, 
and  that,  if  there  be  yet  anything  further  which  can  be  io/erated, 
conceded,  or  dissimulafed,  we  may  discover  it  and  mutually  decide 
upon  it,  that  the  adversaries  may  not  make  an  elephant  out  of  a 
mouse."  To  the  preacher,  Forster,  who  was  engaged  in  the 
service  of  the  church  at  Wittenberg,  but  had  been  called  to 
Augsburg,  he  gave  a  dismissal  to  the  latter  place,  to  testify  his 
sincere  desire  to  confirm  the  new  relations  of  harmony.  When 
the  council  of  Augsburg  offered  to  the  decided  Lutheran,  Hube- 
rinus,  the  position  of  assistant  to  Maiislein  (Musculus),  a  former 
Sacramentarian,  Luther  himself  advised  the  former,  although  he 
had  in  the  year  1532  strenuously  warned  him  against  fellowship 
with  the  Fanatics  or  their  official  representatives,-'  to  accept  the 
position,  in  the  tender  of  which  he  recognized  a  public  testimony 
upon  the  part  of  the  Augsburg  authorities  of  their  full  acceptance 
of  the  Lutheran  doctrine ;  for  any  other  interpretation  of  the 
call  he  could  not  and  would  not  entertain. 

The   proposed  personal   colloquy,   by  means  of  which  it  was 

'  Cf.  here  and  in  following  context:  Briefe,  iv,  613  sq.;  vi,  162,  164;  iv, 
623,  636-642,  651-654,  671,  6S2,  691-695. 

2  Briefe,  iv,  330. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  167 

hoped  that  a  full  mutual  understanding  might  be  arrived  at,  was 
still  advocated,  especially  by  Luther,  and  was  finally  held  in  May, 
1536.  On  the  2ist  of  this  month,  Luther,  prevented  by  sickness 
from  journeying  to  Eisenach,  the  place  first  selected  for  the  gath- 
ering, was  met  at  Wittenberg  by  Bucer  (who  had  in  the  mean- 
time achieved  some  results  in  Switzerland,  especially  through  his 
labors  in  connection  with  the  first  Helvetic,  or  second  Basle  Con- 
fession), the  latter's  associate,  Capito,  Musculus  and  Wolfhardt 
(Lykosthenes),  of  Augsburg,  and  a  number  of  other  ministers 
from  Ulm,  Reutlingen,  Esslingen  and  Frankfort.^  But,  to  the  dis- 
may of  the  visitors,  especially  of  Bucer,  they  found  Luther  in  a 
mood  of  very  decided  hostility  toward  the  conciliatory  move- 
ment. Very  inopportunely,  letters  of  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius, 
containing  damaging  utterances,  had  but  a  short  time  before 
been  given  to  the  press  with  the  knowledge  of  Bucer  and  accom- 
panied with  a  letter  from  him.  At  this  Luther  took  serious 
offence.  He  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  any  reconcilia- 
tion unless  it  should  be  a  genuine  one.  He,  therefore,  called 
for  a  public  recantation  upon  the  part  of  all  who  had  sincerely 
renounced  the  false  doctrine  which  they  had  previously  held. 
As  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of  the  true  doctrine,  he  was  now 
no  longer  satisfied  with  the  propositions  affirming  the  presence 
and  reception  of  the  essential  body,  but  demanded  the  express 
declaration,  that  the  body  is  received  no  less  by  the  unworthy 
and  the  ungodly  [itiipiis)  than  by  the  pious.  He  acknowledged 
that  the  representatives  of  Upper  Germany  had  gradually  ap- 
proached his  position.  He  finds  them  now  advanced  to  the 
confession  that  the  bread  is  the  true,  natural  body  of  Christ, 
received  by  communicants  with  the  mouth.  But  they  still  con- 
sider it,  when  given  to  the  unbelieving,  as  mere  bread ;  and 
hence,  according  to  their  teaching,  the  body  of  Christ  is,  after  all, 
not  present  by  the  power  of  Christ  and  His  appointment,  but 
rather  by  the  power  of  our  faith.  He  now  demands  from  them 
a  public  expression  upon  the  question,  whether  the  bread  is  the 
body  by  virtue  of  the  power  of  Christ,  who  has  so  appointed, 
irrespective  of  the  worthiness  or  unworthiness  of  the  administrant 
or  the  recipient — whether,  consequently,  the  sacrament  is  dis- 

'Cf.,  in  connection  with  the  following,  the  report  of  Myconius,  Walch,  xvii, 
2532  sqq.,  and  that  of  the  Frankfort  delegate,  Bernard,  Walch,  2543  sqq. 


1 68  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

pensed  without  discrimination  to  the  pious  and  the  wicked.' 
This  demand  was  made  by  Luther  on  May  2 2d;  and  he  desired 
to  have  a  response  on  the  following  day. 

Accordingly,  on  May  23d,  Bucer  declared  himself  and  his 
associates  prepared  to  recall  whatever  they  had  wrongfully  taught — 
under  strenuous  protestation,  however,  that  they  had  never  taught 
a  distribution  of  mere  bread  and  wine,  and  that  they  had  formerly 
understood  Luther  merely  as  representing  the  combination  of  the 
body  with  the  bread  and  wine  in  entirely  too  gross  a  manner. 
He  expressly  acknowledged,  further,  the  reception  of  the  body 
with  the  mouth,  and  by  the  umuorthy  to  condemnation,  as  well 
as  by  the  worthy  to  salvation.  As  to  the  reception  of  the  body 
by  the  ungodly,  he  added,  according  to  Myconius,  that  when  he 
denied  this,  he  had  reference  only  to  Turks  and  Jews,  or  to  mice 
and  worms  devouring  one  of  the  wafers  stored  away  by  the 
Papists.  According  to  the  report  of  the  Frankfort  delegate, 
Bernard,  he  said  :  Those  who  pervert  the  Word  and  ordi?ia}ice  of 
the  Lord  in  the  sacra??ient  receive  mere  bread  and  wine ;  those 
who  retain  the  Word  and  ordinance  of  the  Lord  and  believe  in 
the  sacrament,  even  though  they  have  not  true,  living  faith  in 
Christ,  and  hence  receive  the  sacrament  unworthily,  nevertheless 
receive  the  true  body.  To  the  remark  of  Bugenhagen,  that, 
according  to  that  theory,  it  might  still  be  said  that  the  unworthy 
do  not  receive  the  body,  Bucer,  according  to  Bernard,  replied  : 
"  Yes,  in  so  far  as  they  fail  to  meet  the  condition,  where  the 
Word  and  ordinance  of  the  Lord  are  preserved,  which  condition 
is  also  laid  down  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Luther :  for  many,  alas, 
who  believe,  indeed,  in  the  institution  of  the  ordinance,  very 
poorly  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and  hence  receive  the  body 
unworthily.  But  of  those  who  have  no  faith  at  all,  but  come  to 
the  Supper  with  only  sense  and  reason  to  guide  them,  we  hold 
that  they  recewe  only  bread  and  wine,  although,  indeed,  with  the 
bread  and  wine  are  set  before  them,  by  the  institution  of  the 
Lord  and  the  service  of  the  Church,  the  true  body  and  the  true 
blood ;  for  the  institution  of  the  Lord  certainly  does  not  depend 
upon  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  any  man." 

The  other  delegates,  interrogated  by  Luther,  all  separately 
assented  to  the  confession  of  Bucer  touching  the  true  presence 

1  Cf.  the  report  of  Myconius. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 69 

of  the  body,  and  asserted  further,  that  their  rulers  had  affixed 
penalties  for  the  denial  of  such  a  presence. 

Luther  again,  according  to  Myconius,  called'  upon  them  to 
acknowledge  that  the  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ  by  virtue  of 
the  power  and  appointment  of  the  Lord,  whether  the  unworthy 
abuse  or  the  worthy  properly  use  it.  Thus  their  confession  was 
now  finally  adopted.  In  regard  to  the  question  concerning  the 
participation  of  the  ungodly,  they  were,  according  to  Myconius, 
advised,  in  case  the  assertion  that  the  ungodly  receive  the  true 
body  of  Christ  should  be  thought  too  strong  to  find  acceptance 
among  their  people,  to  employ,  for  the  present,  the  term  "  un- 
worthy," as  used  by  St.  Paul,  and  yet  to  expound  clearly  the  real 
point  at  issue  ;  or,  instead  of  speaking  of  che  ungodly  (who  do  not 
receive  the  body),  to  use  the  term  "  unbelieving  "  (/.  c,  without 
true  faith).  According  to  Bernard's  account,  Luther  said  in 
reference  to  these  discussions  :  "  You  now  take  offence  only  in 
the  case  of  the  ungodly,  and  confess,  as  Paul  declares,  that  the 
unworthy  receive  the  body  of  the  Lord,  where  the  appointment 
and  words  of  the  Lord  are  not  perverted.  Upon  that  point  we 
will  not  quarrel." 

Finally,  a  formula  prepared  by  Melanchthon  was  subscribed  by 
all  present,  the  decisive  propositions  of  which  are  as  follows  : 
"  Bucer,  etc.,  confess  *  *  *  that  with  the  bread  and  wine 
are  truly  and  substantially  present,  exhibited  and  received  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  although  *  *  *  they  do  not 
believe  that  there  is  any  local  inclusion  in  the  bread,  nor  any 
combination  enduring  beyond  the  actual  celebration  of  the  sacra- 
ment (both  of  which  ideas  were  rejected  by  Luther  as  well), 
nevertheless,  they  grant  that  the  bread  is,  by  a  sacramental  union, 
the  body  of  Christ ;  that  is,  they  believe  that,  with  the  offered 
bread,  there  is  at  the  same  time  present  and  truly  exhibited 
the  body  of  Christ ;  and  hence,  that  this  institution  of  the  sacra- 
ment has  validity  in  the  Church,  and  does  not  depend  upon  the 
worthiness  of  the  administrant  nor  of  the  recipient.  Wherefore, 
as  Paul  says  that  the  unworthy  also  eat,  they,  therefore,  believe 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  truly  offered  even  to  the 
unworthy,  and  that  the  uinvortJiy  receive  them,  where  the  words 
and  ordinance  of  Christ  are  preserved ;  but  such  receive  only  to 
their  own  condemnation,  because  they  abuse  the  sacrament, 
since  they  employ  it  without  penitence  and  without faiihy     The 


lyo  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

agreement  was  thus  consummated.  It  was  yet  kept  in  hand  only 
in  order  to  secure  expressions  of  opinion  and  endorsement  from 
the  absent  pastors  and  dignitaries. 

Such  was  the  course  of  proceedings  at  Wittenberg.  And  thus, 
again,  the  point  in  which  the  differences  among  the  theologians 
were  really  concentrated,  /.  e.,  the  question  in  relation  to  the 
ungodly,  or  unbelieving,  was  left  unsettled,  whilst  in  other  points 
they  appeared  to  be  in  harmony.  The  two  reports  of  the  confer- 
ence agree  in  presenting  this  as  the  general  result  of  the  colloquy.' 
But  how  are  we  to  understand  Luther's  final  attitude  in  this 
matter? 

That  Bucer  and  his  associates  of  Upper  Germany,  even  during 
the  Wittenberg  colloquy,  clearly  enough  held  a  conception  quite 
dififerent  from  that  of  Luther  upon  the  disputed  point,  is  evident 
from  the  reports  preserved.  In  support  of  the  position,  that,  in 
a  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  which  the  words  of  institu- 
tion were  denied  through  disbelief  of  the  truth  which  they  embody, 
the  body  of  Christ  is  not  present,  but  only  bread  and  wine, 
Bucer  was  able,  indeed,  to  appeal  directly  to  Luther  himself,  as 
he  actually  did  in  the  above-cited  reply  to  Bugenhagen.^  But 
Luther,  when  expressing  himself  thus  in  regard  to  the  communion 
of  the  Sacramentarians,  had  reference  to  cases  in  which  the 
administrators  of  the  sacrament  and  entire  congregations — at 
least  in  the  persons  of  their  representatives  and  in  their  confes- 
sions— were  guilty  of  such  denial,  and  thus  of  apostasy  from  the 
ordinance  of  Christ;  and,  in  such  cases,  he  was  so  far  from 
acknowledging  the  presence  of  the  body  as  to  claim  that  it  was 
not  even  there  partaken  of  by  believing  communicants  who 
might  be  present.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  wherever  the  Supper 
is  celebrated  by  a  church  with  faith  in  the  words  of  institution 
and  in  accordance  with  the  appointment  of  Christ,  there  the 
presence  of  the  body  is,  for  him,  such  an  absolute  objective 
reality,  that  the  true  body,  he  maintains,  is  received  even  by  such 
of  the  congregation  as  may  be  total  unbelievers.  Bucer  main- 
tained, on  the  contrary,  that  in  the  latter  case,  although  the 
body  is,  indeed,  exhibited  to  all,  it  does  not  enter  into  such 
communicants  as  are  total  unbelievers.     Thus,  even  where  the 

'  Planck,  Gescliichte  des  protestantischen   Lelirbegriffs,  1796,  vol.  iii,  chap. 
i,  p.  380,  has  evidently  entirely  overlooked  the  report  of  Bernard. 
''Cf.  also  the  Augsburg  Ministers,  Walch,  xvii,  2476. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  I71 

sacrament  is  dispensed  in  accordance  with  Christ's  appointment 
and  in  the  power  of  Christ,  he  yet  in  so  far  makes  the  reception 
of  the  body  dependent  upon  the  faith  of  the  recipient.  The 
question  may  here  be  naturally  raised,  whether  the  doctrine  of 
the  theologians  of  Upper  Germany  might  not  still  be  interpreted 
as  being  simply,  that  the  true  presence  of  the  essential  body  is 
merely  a  presence  for  the  spirit,  or  for  the  devout  exaltation  of 
the  individual?  The  distinction  made  by  Bucer  between  those 
who  do  not  at  all  believe  the  words,  and  those  who  lack  only  a 
true,  living  faith  in  Christ,  does  not  in  the  least  conflict  with  such 
an  interpretation ;  for,  even  in  the  case  of  the  latter  class,  we 
may  conceive  as  finding  place,  along  with  their  deficiency  in 
living  faith  and  their  consequent  unworthiness,  a  certain  exalta- 
tion of  thought  to  the  contemplation  of  the  body  exhibited  to 
mental  view  in  the  sacrament.  At  all  events,  the  difference 
upon  this  point  proved  persistent.  -* 

Luther  was,  upon  his  part,  determined  in  no  case  to  depart  in 
the  least  from  the  full  substance  of  his  doctrine.  He  placed 
such  entire  confidence,  also,  in  the  confession  of  the  theologians 
of  Upper  Germany,  acknowledging  the  presence  of  the  body  as 
assured  by  the  words  and  power  of  Christ,  that  he  would  enter- 
tain no  suspicion  of  any  such  interpretation  as  has  been  above 
suggested.  Moreover,  the  formula  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord 
was  couched  in  such  terms  as  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it 
was  designed  to  set  forth  simply  his  ozvn  views.  The  idea  of  an 
eating  by  mice  or  worms,  and  that  of  a  presence  of  the  body  in 
a  celebration  among  Turks,  or  other  total  unbelievers,  were 
entirely  excluded  by  the  denial  of  the  "  diu-abilis  cotyunctio  "  and 
by  the  clause,  "  ifistitiitionem  sacram  valere  in  ecclesia  " — and  this, 
in  entire  harmony  with  Luther's  views  as  elsewhere  expressed. 
In  the  case  of  the  observance  of  the  Supper  by  a  congregation 
which  relies  upon  the  appointment  by  Christ,  there  is  not  only  no 
suggestion  of  any  discrimination  between  unbelieving  and  un- 
worthy participants,  but  the  words  last  cited  above  from  the 
formula  combine  lack  of  faith  and  unworthiness  as  traits  of  the 
same  individuals.  Bucer's  view  could  be  reconciled  with  this 
language  only  by  the  mental  reservation,  that  by  "  without  faith  " 
is  here  meant  only  the  lack  of  true  faith,  and  that  the  formula 
takes  no  notice  at  all  of  cases  of  entire  disbelief  of  the  words  of 
Christ. 


172  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

It  must  be  said,  in  truth,  that,  even  after  all  the  deliberations 
at  Wittenberg,  such  a  reservation  was  at  least  not  made  impossible. 
That  Luther  did  not  insist  upon  a  more  clear  and  positive  deliver- 
ance upon  this  point  is  very  significant.  He  was  not  the  man  to 
so  completely  overlook  the  point  of  difference  from  motives  of 
policy  or  diplomacy.  He  could  do  so  only  if  convinced  that  the 
theologians  in  question,  although  not  making  a  confession  entirely 
accordant  with  his  views,  were  yet  maintaining  the  fundamental 
point  in  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament,  and  by  discriminating 
between  this  fundamental  position  and  an  inference  which  was 
less  essential  although,  to  his  mind,  logically  necessary.  He  may 
yet  have  cherished  also  the  hope,  that  an  honest  adherence  to 
that  which  tliey  had  now  actually  confessed  would,  by  an  inner 
iiecessity,  lead  those  who  yet  differed  with  him  to  recognize  the 
inconsistency  of  their  view  upon  this  point  and  themselves  aban- 
(ion  it.  But  we  cannot  comprehend  even  the  cherishing  of  such 
a  hope  upon  his  part,  except  as  we  recognize  in  it  evidence  of 
a  profound  longing  for  harmony,  arising  from  a  consciousness  of 
the  common  possession  of  evangelical  cruth,  which,  in  the  last 
decisive  moment  of  the  colloquy,  led  him  to  ignore  all  the  sus- 
picious circumstances  which  plainly  enough  tended  to  discourage 
these  bright  anticipations. 

Nothing  but  this  same  feeling  can  account,  finally,  for  the  tone 
which  he  now  assumed  in  dealing  with  the  hitherto  stubborn 
Swiss  advocates  of  Zwinglianism. 

We  can  clearly  recognize  the  great  chasm  which  yawns  between 
the  propositions  of  the  Helvetic  Confession,  which  Bucer  had 
sought  to  frame  in  the  closest  possible  accord  with  that  of  the 
Lutherans,  and  the  Lutheran  document  which  he  had  now  signed. 
The  former  confesses,  "  that  the  Lord  truly  offers  to  His  own 
(followers)  in  the  Lord's  Supper  His  body  and  His  blood,  that 
is.  Himself,  in  order  that  He  may  more  and  more  live  in  them 
and  they  in  Him."  '  Then,  after  the  rejection  of  a  "  natural  " 
combination  of  the  bread  and  body,  of  a  spacial  inclusion  of  the 
body,  and  of  every  "  bodily,  carnal  "  presence — it  is  held,  "  that 
bread  and  wine  are  true  signs,  through  which  *  *  *  the  true 
communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (the  approved 
German  translation  here  inserts  the  words  "  to  believers  ")  are  set 

^  Cf.  supra,  citations  from  the  Tetrapolitana. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURG.  1 73 

forth  and  presented    {exhibcdfi/r :  angeboten),  not  as  perishable 
food  for  the  stomach,  but  as  a  nourishment  of   eternal   life."     A 
discrimination  being  made  between  signs  and  the  things  signified 
{res),  there  are  named  as  the  res,  or  the  "  essential  and  spiritual  " 
part  of  the  sacrament,  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the 
purchased  salvation  (according  to  the  German  version,  the  salva- 
tion "  won  on  the  cross  ") ,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.     All  this,  it 
is  said,  is  received  through  the  faith  of  the  spirit,  as  the  signs 
through  the  mouth  of  the  body.     We  can  find  here  no  room  for  a 
corporeal  reception  of  the  body,  nor  for  a  reception  of   it  by  the 
unbelieving.     Nothing  is  said  even  of  a  presence  {adesse)  of  the 
body ;  it  is  only  a  presenting  {cxhiberi)    that  is  spoken  of.     No 
wonder  that,  when  Bucer  now  came  with  the  Wittenberg  formula, 
the  adherents  of  the  former  confession  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it  or  with  him.     In  vain  did  he  seek  to  deny  the  significance 
of  the  differences  noted  ;  in  vain  appealed  to  the  fact,  that  Luther 
did  not  mean  to  teach  any  local  presence,  nor  any  inclusion  of  the 
body.     The  Swiss  confessors  could  not  at  all  accept  the  kind  of 
an  unlocalized  bodily  presence  which  Luther  taught,   nor  were 
they  satisfied  with  the  reservation  which   Bucer  sought  to  make 
to  cover  the  case  of  ungodly  communicants.     They  finally,  at  the 
convention  of  Basle,  on  November  12th,  1536,  decided  to  address 
Luther  himself.     They  re-affirmed   their  adherence   to   the    old 
Zwinglian  propositions,  that  Christ  has  departed  from  the  world, 
is  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  is  not  to  be  again  brought 
down  thence  into  the  earthly  state ;  and  that  the  body  of  Christ 
cannot,  therefore,  be  corporeally  eaten,  nor  can  Christ  Himself 
be   corporeally  present   everywhere.     They  then   declare,   that, 
according  to  Bucer's  interpretation,  the  new  formula  would  not 
alter  their  old  confession  to  which  they  wish  to  adhere ;   that  the 
bodily  ascension  of  Christ  to  heaven,  in  consequence  of  which  He 
is  no  longer  carnally  in  the  world,  but  remains  in  His  heavenly 
state,  would  not  be  denied  ;  and  it  would  not  be    questioned, 
that  He  is  apprehended  and  received  in  the  Lord's  Supper  only 
by  a  believing  heart.     Upon  the  basis  of  these  premises,  and  only 
upon  such  basis,  would  they  cheerfully  unite  in  the  conciliatory 
movement. 

Let  us  now  obsen^e  the  attitude  which  Luther  assumed  toward 
such  propositions.  To  judge  of  it  properly,  we  must  glance  at 
his  separate  deliverances  upon  the  subject.     We  find   the  first 


174  I'HE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

response  to  the  communication  of  the  Swiss  theologians,  which 
reached  him  by  the  hand  of  Bucer  in  February,  1537,  in  a  Letter  to 
the  Burgomaster  of  Basle,  under  date  of  February  17  th.  With- 
out entering  at  all  upon  the  consideration  of  the  doctrinal  points 
presented,  he  joyfully  recognizes  the  zeal  with  which  the  cause  of 
the  Gospel  is  prosecuted  upon  their  part,  and  implores  that  God 
may  grant  yet  more  grace  for  the  establishment  of  a  secure  and 
harmonious  system  of  doctrine.  Meanwhile,  he  most  earnestly 
entreats  the  burgomaster  to  use  influence  among  his  own  people, 
that,  despite  the  suspicions  which  may  yet  linger  here  and  there, 
matters  may  be  quietly  allowed  to  settle  down,  and  the  now 
slumbering  birds  of  discord  be  not  scared  up  again.  He  promises 
to  make  a  valiant  effoit  to  maintain  such  a  course  himself,  as, 
indeed,  all  is  already  quiet  in  his  neighborhood,  both  in  the 
pulpit  and  among  the  people.  Thus  all  should  strive  for  harmony 
with  patience,  gentleness,  kindness  in  speech  and,  above  all,  with 
earnest  prayer  to  God.'  Soon  after  this,  on  March  ist,  Bucer  and 
Wolfhardt  visited  Luther  at  Gotha,  where  the  latter  had  been 
taken  seriously  ill  while  on  his  homeward  journey  from  the  Smal- 
cald  convention.^  P'ace  to  face  with  death,  he  speaks  with  great 
earnestness  and  frankness  again  of  the  attitude  of  his  visitors 
upon  the  question  of  the  sacrament,  in  which  they  have  not  yet 
gone  far  enough  to  satisfy  him.  Personally,  he  is  entirely  willing 
to  have  patience  with  them,  and  to  believe  that,  since  the  matter 
has  been  dragged  into  such  depths  of  error,  they  cannot  so  sud- 
denly bring  it  out  into  the  clear  and  undo  all  the  mischief  that 
has  been  wrought.  He  does  not  conceal  from  them  the  fact,  that 
many  upon  his  side  have  not  yet  been  able  to  overcome  their 
feelings  of  distrust,  and  that  they  themselves  have,  by  their  pub- 
lished works  and  public  teaching,  especially  by  their  "  turncoat- 
ing,"  given  occasion  for  such  apprehensions.  He  again  protests 
especially  against  all  representations  upon  their  part,  that  there 
had  been  in  earlier  i>eriods  merely  a  lack  of  mutual  understand- 
ing, maintaining  that  he,  at  least,  had  thoroughly  understood 
them.     He  now  deems  it  best,  that  they  should  either  be  silent 

'  Briefe,  v,  54  sqq, 

^  A  report  of  the  following  deliverances  of  Luther,  which  bears  the  distinct 
impress  of  historical  accuracy,  is  found  in  the  Tisclireden  xix,  §  42,  Forste- 
mann,  ii,  320  sqq.  The  utterance  itsell  has  been  mistaken  for  a  letter  and  at- 
tributed to  the  year  1532.     Cf.  ibid,  and  also  Briefe,  vi,  483,  Anm. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 75 

upon  this  point  (/.  e.,  evidently,  cease  such  attempts  to  justify  the 
past)  and  hereafter  teach  rightly,  or  that  they  should  acknowl- 
edge publicly  and  without  reserve  that  they  had  been  in  error. 
He  foresees,  indeed,  that  such  a  course  would  again  occasion 
dissatisfaction  among  their  adherents ;  but  he  thinks  that  what 
cannot  be  done  at  once  might  be  accomplished  within  a  quarter 
or  half-year,  or,  at  least,  within  an  entire  year.  He  refers  the 
Swiss  to  his  very  friendly  letter  forwarded  to  the  burgomaster  of 
Basle,  advising  them  to  refer  to  the  latter  in  case  of  his  own  early 
death.  Should  his  life  be  spared,  he  will  very  gladly  render  the 
most  faithful  and  affectionate  service  with  his  pen  to  the  people 
who  have  written  to  him  in  so  kind  a  spirit.  To  the  Swiss  cities 
in  general,  which  had  appealed  to  him,  he  does  not  reply  until 
December  ist,  having,  however,  previously  assured  them  through 
Melanchthon  of  his  favorable  reception  of  their  communication. 
In  the  letter  now  sent  to  them,  laying  aside  all  doubts  hitherto 
entertained  as  to  the  sincerity  of  their  ministers,  he  recognizes  it 
as  their  full  and  earnest  purpose  to  accept  and  promote  the 
Concord,  although  there  may  yet  be  some  upon  both  sides  who 
regard  it  with  suspicion.  It  is  too  much  to  expect,  that  such  a 
great  schism  should  be  remedied  so  easily  and  quickly  without 
leaving  some  scratches  and  scars.  The  proper  course  is,  there- 
fore, to  silence  loud-mouthed  disturbers  of  the  peace,  and  to 
advise  the  people  to  entrust  the  management  of  the  Concord  to 
the  persons  properly  called  and  qualified  for  such  work.  He  then 
makes  an  explanation  of  some  matters  connected  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  sacrament,  declaring,  with  evident  reference  to  the  propo- 
sitions laid  before  him  by  the  Swiss  :  "  We  have  never  yet  taught 
that  Christ  descends  from  heaven,  or  from  the  right  hand  of 
God,  or  ascends  to  such  a  position,  either  visibly  or  invisibly ;  but 
we  hold  firmly  to  the  article  of  the  Creed  :  '  Ascended  to  heaven,' 
etc.,  and  commit  to  the  divine  omnipotence  the  question,  how 
His  body  and  blood  are  given  to  us  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  We 
do  not  therein  think  of  any  ascent  or  descent  as  taking  place, 
but  we  hold  absolutely  and  simply  to  the  words  :  This  is  my 
body."  He  confines  himself,  however,  in  his  reply,  to  this  one 
point — the  rebuttal  of  the  idea  that  any  damage  is  done  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  continuance  of  Christ  in  the  state  of  heavenly  exaltation 
by  his  "  absolute  and  simple  '''  adherence  to  the  words  of  institu- 
tion, upon  which  point  the  Swiss,  according  to  their  letter,  made 


176  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

everything  to  depend.  He  utters  not  a  single  word  from  which 
the  inference  might  be  drawn,  that  he,  in  his  acceptance  of  the 
Wittenberg  formula,  did  not  mean  to  still  strenuously  maintain 
the  bodily  reception  and  the  actual  participation  of  the  ungodly. 
On  the  contrary,  his  readers  must  not  only  have  been  able  to 
infer  with  certainty  from  all  his  former  writings  what  a  real  pre- 
sentation and  presence  of  the  body  he  would  have  them  deduce 
from  the  simple  understanding  of  the  words  of  institution  here 
insisted  upon  and  from  the  divine  omnipotence  here  likewise 
emphasized  ;  but,  in  addition,  the  Smalcald  Articles,  then  fresh 
from  his  pen,  again  maintained  most  positively  the  reception  of 
the  true  body  by  the  ungodly  as  well  as  by  the  pious.  Yet  it  is 
true,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  did  entirely  refrain  from  set- 
ting forth  plainly  in  his  present  communication  his  own  theory, 
and  the  features  in  which  it  was  irreconcilable  with  the  interpre- 
tation now  given  to  the  formula  of  cxincord  by  the  Swiss.  He 
merely  adds  the  remark  :  "  Yet,  as  I  have  said  above,  if  we 
cannot  fully  understand  one  another  in  this  matter,  it  will  be  best 
for  us,  for  the  present,  to  treat  one  another  kindly  and  always 
put  the  best  construction  upon  one  another's  words  and  actions, 
until  the  troubled  waters  shall  have  settled  themselves.  Dr. 
Capito  and  Magister  Bucer  can  also  thus  counsel  all,  if  we  but 
heartily  agree  upon  this  course,  and  lay  aside  all  malice,  in  order 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  have  opportunity  to  further  promote 
love  and,  finally,  concord,"  etc'  Immediately  afterwards,  he 
declares  to  Bucer,  to  whom  he  at  once  sent  a  copy  of  the  above 
letter,  as  a  guide  in  the  furtherance  of  the  peace  movement 
committed  to  direction  of  the  latter  and  Capito,-'  that  they  have 
made  his  undertaking  a  difificult  one  by  their  report  that  some 
upon  their  side  into  whose  hands  his  letter  might  fall  did  not 
yet  favor  the  Concord.  He  remarks,  further,  that  the  Helvetic 
Confession  (of  1536)  does  not  please  him  quite  as  well  as  the 
German  confession  of  the  cities  (evidently  the  TeirapoUtan, 
which  appeared  also  in  German  in  1531).  The  spiritual  presence 
was,  in  fact,  more  distinctly  emphasized  in  contradistinction  from 
the  bodily  than  in  the  latter  document.  When,  at  length,  the 
Swiss  were  fully  prepared  to  enter  into  the  movement — although 
only  with  the  explanations  above  indicated — and  had,  on  May  4th. 

1  Briefe,  v,  83  sqq.  2  jbid,  v,  87. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 77 

1538,  addressed  another  letter  to  him  upon  the  subject,  he  again, 
in  his  reply  of  June  9th,  refrains  from  discussing  any  point  of 
doctrine,  except  that  referred  to  in  his  previous  communication. 
"  I  have  been  very  glad  to  observe  therein  "  (/.  e.,  in  their  letter), 
says  he,  "  that  your  hearts  are  all  prepared  for  concord,  and  that 
you  were  pleased  with  my  letter  testifying  that  we  do  not  here 
teach  that  there  is  in  the  sacrament  an  ascending  and  descending 
of  the  Lord,  yet  we  do  hold  that  the  true  body  and  blood  are 
there  received  under  bread  and  wine."  Upon  the  precise  ques- 
tion as  to  the  bodily  or  spiritual  reception,  he  again  says  nothing. 
For  further  instruction  he  again  refers  them  to  Bucer  and  Capito. 
He  assures  them  that  he  has  no  doubt  that  they  have  a  pious 
little  flock,  that  earnestly  desires  to  live  and  act  aright.  In  this 
he  rejoices,  and  devoutly  hopes  that,  if  they  be,  indeed,  as  yet 
somewhat  restrained  by  a  hedge  (of  errors),  God  may  in  due 
time  assist  them  to  a  joyful  deliverance.  Although  he  might  still 
hesitate  to  fully  trust  some  among  them,  on  account  of  the  char- 
acter of  their  publications,  he  has  contented  himself  with, express- 
ing his  fears  to  Bucer.  He  will  give  all  credit  even  to  such,  as 
far  as  may  be  possible,  until  they  also  arrive  at  the  full  truth. 
He  accordingly  beseeches  them  to  continue  their  efforts  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  divine  work  so  well  begun.' 

Meanwhile  Bullinger,  who  was  a  most  decided,  advocate  of  the 
Swiss  position,  especially  as  opposed  to  Bucer,  had  also  opened 
communication  with  Luther  by  the  sending  of  two  of  his  publica- 
tions to  the  latter.  He  had  shortly  before  published  Zwingli's 
Christianae  fidei  *  *  *  expositio,  etc.,  which  was  most 
highly  calculated,  by  its  theses  upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  to 
arouse  anew  the  zeal  of  Luther  against  the  Sacramentarians, 
and,  by  its  utterances  touching  the  salvation  of  the  heathen," 
to  awaken  his  indignation  against  Zwingli's  entire  conception  of 
Christianity.  Nevertheless,  Luther  replies  to  him,  undei  date  of 
May  14th,  1538,  in  a  gentle  though  earnest  tone.  He  candidly 
expresses  his  disapproval  of  the  publication  of  a  writing  in  which 
there  is  so  much  to  give  offence  to  all  pious  people.  At  the 
same  time,  however,  he  assures  his  correspondent  that  the  death 
of  Zwingli  and  Qicolampadius  had  very  deeply  pained  him, 
declaring,  further,  that  he  had  ever  since  the  Marburg  Colloquy 

1  Briefe,  v,  120  sq.  ">■  Cf.  infra,  p.   189. 

12 


178  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

regarded  the  former  as  an  excellent  man.  Yet  he  is  careful  to 
maintain  his  own  convictions  by  pronouncing  it  to  be  the  source 
of  deepest  grief  to  him,  that  he  should  be  compelled  to  think  of 
Zwingli  as  persisting  to  the  end  in  his  opposition.  He  still  further 
declares,  with  perfect  candor,  that  he  cannot  approve  all  that  is 
said  by  Bullinger  and  his  party^  just  as  the  latter  may  perhaps 
charge  him  with  error — of  which  charge  God  must  be  the  judge. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  now  again  solemnly  afiirms  that  nothing 
that  could  happen  would  give  him  such  joy  as  that  God  should, 
before  his  departure,  at  length  grant  to  his  Church  the  spirit  of 
unity.^ 

During  the  progress  of  the  negotiations  looking  toward  har- 
mony, he  repeatedly  expressed  his  satisfaction  and  hopes,  not 
only  to  individuals  representing  the  opposing  party,  but  also  to 
his  own  friends,  as,  for  example,  to  the  Duke  of  Prussia.  To  the 
latter  he  writes,  under  date  of  August,  1538,  that  he  hopes  in  a 
short  time  to  secure  a  happy  concord.'^ 

We  turn  now  to  the  important  question,  how  the  entire  attitude 
assumed  by  Luther  during  these  negotiations  is  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  principles  which  he  had  hitherto,  and  under  other  cir- 
cumstances, so  stoutly  maintained.  In  view  of  the  much  sterner 
bearing  which  marked  his  intercourse  with  the  theologians  of 
Upper  Germany  in  1536,  what  can  have  been  his  real  impressions 
and  hopes  in  regard  to  these  Swiss?  Two  things,  at  least,  must 
here  be  regarded  as  certain.  In  the  first  place,  Luther,  in  so  fir 
as  he  approached  them,  acted  under  the  conviction  that  their 
positive  confession  of  the  reception  of  an  objective  heavenly  gift 
as  the  essential  feature  of  the  sacrament  constituted,  at  all  events 
— even  leaving  out  of  view  the  concession  of  a  bodily  reception — 
a  fundamental  distinction  from  the  theory  of  Zwinglianism.  He 
acted  in  the  confident  assurance  that  the  latter  had  been  van- 
quished, at  least  among  the  honest  members  of  the  opposite  party, 
who  now  took  part  in  the  negotiations  for  peace.  That  his 
opinion  of  it  had  never  been  modified  in  the  least,  is  evident 
enough  from  his  letter  to  Bullinger  cited  above.  In  so  far  as  he 
yet  cherished  suspicions  against  particular  persons,  these  were 
based  upon  the  fear  that  the  latter  yet  persisted  in  their  attach- 
ment to  Zwinglianism,  although  dishonestly  subscribing  articles 

1  Briefe,  V,  1 1 1  sq.  2151^,^107,124. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 79 

which,  in  his  opinion,  impHed  an  utter  rejection  of  that  system. 
In  the  second  place,  it  is  evident  that  he  can  by  no  means  have 
cherished  the  conviction  that  the  opposite  party  in  these  nego- 
tiations had,  even  in  regard  to  the  bodily  presence,  as  he  taught 
it  and  as  he  held  it  to  be  confessed  in  the  Wittenberg  Concord, 
really  come  over  to  his  own  position.  If  he  did  not  fail  to  note 
the  difference  still  remaining  between  himself  and  his  brethren  of 
Upper  Germany,  such  an  overlooking  of  the  chasm  between  his 
view  of  the  bodily  presence  and  that  of  these  men  of  Switzerland, 
who  had  themselves  so  plainly  informed  him  of  their  understand- 
ing of  the  language  employed,  must  have  been  utterly  impossible. 
Why  did  he,  if  unconscious  of  this  difference,  so  persistently,  even 
in  his  friendly  reply  to  their  appeal,  avoid  a  positive  acceptance 
of  their  interpretation  as  his  own?  We  are  compelled,  therefore, 
to  infer  that  harmony  with  them,  despite  this  recognized  differ- 
ence, appeared  to  him  not  impossible. 

We  must,  however,  be  on  our  guard,  lest  we  infer  too  much 
from  the  above.  Luther  did  not  mean  by  his  participation  in  the 
negotiations  in  question  to  yield  any  portion  of  his  full  and  strict 
doctrine  of  a  bodily  reception,  nor  to  grant  in  the  least  that  the 
point  of  difference  was  of  small  account.  He  defends  himself, 
particularly,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Isny,'  against  the  charge 
of  having  forsaken  his  former  position,  in  order  that  such  boasting 
by  the  other  party  may  not  turn  the  concord  into  a  worse  dis- 
cord. Should  any  one  be  inclined  to  infer  from  the  forbearing 
attitude  of  Luther  that  he  was  merely  seeking  to  avoid  a  discus- 
sion of  the  question  at  issue,  or  that  he  would  have  been  satisfied 
if  merely  allowed  to  quietly  maintain  his  own  personal  opinion, 
such  estimates  of  the  situation  must  be  utterly  dissipated  by  the 
declaration  in  the  Smakald  Articles  in  1537,:  "  that  bread  and 
wine  are  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  are  offered  to 
and  received  not  only  by  pious,  but  also  by  ungodly  Christians." 
He  could  prepare  no  statement  of  faith  for  evangelical  believers 
without  such  clear  enunciation  of  this  doctrine ;  nor  does  he  stop 
at  all  to  consider,  in  j^his  case,  that  among  the  allies  in  Upper  Ger- 
many of  the  Smalcald  League,  which  was  expected  to  accept 
this  confession,  a  discrimination  is  yet  made  between  the  un- 
worthy and  the  ungodly ;  still  less,  that  hopes  are  now  entertained 

J  Briefe,  v,  89. 


I  So  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

of  enlisting  in  the  League  the  Swiss  Reformers,  who  would  cer- 
tainly take  offence  at  such  an  unequivocal  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine. Yet,  in  his  dealings  with  the  Swiss,  he  does  not,  as  yet, 
even  urge  upon  them  an  assent  to  these  propositions.  On  the 
contrary,  whilst  refuting  the  charge  of  the  Zwinglians  against  his 
own  doctrine  as  irreconcilable  with  the  Saviour's  state  of  exalta- 
tion in  heaven,  he  quietly  permits  them  to  retain  their  own  inter- 
pretation of  the  true,  and  yet  only  spiritual,  dispensing  of  the 
body ;  and  for  further  instruction,  he  directs  them  to  Bucer,  who, 
as  he  well  knew,  would  certainly  not  insist  upon  that  particular 
feature  of  the  doctrine.  He  cannot  and  will  not  himself  approve 
the  interpretation  in  question  ;  but  he  entrusts  the  work  of  recon- 
ciliation to  one  who  is  willing  to  concede  it.  For  a  long  time  he 
carefully  refrains  from  any  public  utterance  which  would  indicate 
that  he  regarded  the  reconciliation  as  actually  accomplished  by 
the  partial  concord  secured,  and  merely  expresses  the  wish  and 
hope  that  further  progress  may  be  made  in  that  direction.  But  at 
length  he  speaks  of  the  matter  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  that 
he  regards  the  reconciliation  with  the  leading  Swiss  Reformers  as 
an  accomplished  fact,  and  that  he  still  cherishes  suspicion  only  in 
the  case  of  certain  individuals,  and  is  chiefly  concerned  for  a 
proper  direction  of  the  people  in  the  matter.  He  may  have 
further  reflected,  that  the  Swiss,  allowed  to  retain  their  own  view, 
would  at  any  rate  occupy  but  a  subordinate  position  as  compared 
with  the  German  Lutheran  churches,  which  confessed  the^fuU 
truth  concerning  the  sacrament  in. entire  accordance  with  his  view 
of  it,  and  among  whom,  at  that  very  time,  his  new  SinaJcald 
Corifession  was  being  received  without  opposition.  It  is  possible 
that  he  may  even  have  cherished  the  hope  that,  when  the  Swiss 
should  have  once  actually  entered  into  relations  of  harmony  with 
the  Germans,  and  when  the  "  troubled  waters-  should  have  become 
clear,"  their  aberrations  might  of  themselves  quietly  disappear. 

Explain  it  as  we  may,  however,  the  fact  remains,  that  while  tliese 
Swiss  theologians  were  still  at  variance  with  the  position  of  Luther, 
he  was  zvilling  to  exte?id  to  them  the  hand  of  reconciliation  and 
peace.  This  was  a  kind  of  patience  entirely  different  from  that 
promised  at  Marburg,  in  which  merely  violent  contention  and 
abuse  were  to  be  avoided,  whilst,  on  the  other  hand.  Christian 
fellowship  was  still  to  be  denied.  It  was  also  very  much  more 
than  the  theologians  of  Upper  Germany  had  secured  at  Witten- 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  l8l 

berg,  where,  in  subscribing  the  formula,  with  its  strong  and  decided 
language,  the  latter  had  been  permitted  to  interpret  it  in  their 
own  way,  but  could  not  have  ventured  to  express  their  views  with 
such  boldness  as  did  these  men  of  Switzerland.  What  can  it  have 
been  that  made  the  unbending  Luther  now  so  yielding?  He 
himself  still  speaks  often  of  the  gain  which  would  result  from  a 
combination  of  evangelical  believers  against  their  enemies, 
whereas  a  failure  of  these  negotiations  would  "  occasion  a  new 
fools'  jollification  among  the  Papists."'  But  even  now  we  cannot 
persuade  ourselves  that  purely  outward  aims  or  considerations 
can  have  forced  from  him  a  concession  against  which  his  con- 
viction of  the  magnitude  of  the  yet  remaining  difference  of  views 
protested.  We  must  conclude,  either  that  a  spasm  of  amiable 
weakness  beclouded  the  vision  otherwise  so  keen,  and  broke  the 
power  of  the  will  otherwise  so  sturdy ;  or  we  must — as  we  hereby 
do — fall  back  again,  for  explanation  of  his  attitude  towards  the 
Swiss  theologians,  upon  the  feeling  and  inner  conviction,  that  the 
agreement  in  that  which  was  fundamentally  essential  had  now 
come  to  overbalance  the  difference  upon  that  one  point  in  which 
the  latter  had  not  as  yet  recognized  che  full  meaning  of  the  truth 
— that  these  men  had  now  no  longer,  like  Zwingli,  "  another 
spirit,"  but,  despite  their  imperfections,  the  true  evangelical 
spirit.  Nor  is  the  case,  in  this  view  of  it,  without  parallel  in 
Luther's  previous  history.  We  recall  the  moderation  and  kind- 
ness with  which  he  spoke  of  the  Boheviian  Brethren,  and  to  them, 
in  regard  to  their  sacramental  theory,  and,  especially,  his  attitude 
toward  the  Siuabian  Syngramma.  This  inner  conviction,  indeed, 
never  secures  a  clear  and  indep^dent  analysis  or  expression  in 
his  writings.  This,  again,  is  closely  connected  with  the  fact,  that 
he  was  never  willing  to  go  into  extended  explanations  in  response 
to  the  communications  received  from  these  men.  Nor  are  we 
able  to  determine  in  what  position,  according  to  the  view  and 
aim  of  Luther,  the  Swiss  would  have  been  placed,  had  they 
entered  into  a  league  with  the  German  Lutherans  upon  the  basis 
of  common  confessions,  such  as  that  submitted  at  Smalcald. 
There  is  in  so  far,  therefore,  a  lack  of  inner  assurance  and  logical 
consistency  in  his  course  during  this  period,  which  makes  it  the 
easier  to  understand  the  fresh  and  violent  outbreak  of  the  polemic 

1  Briefe,  v,  125 


1 82  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

spirit,  wliich  is  so  soon  afterward  manifest  in  his  writings.  Yet 
the  object  of  this  new  assault  is  not  the  propositions  themseh'es 
which  were  heretofore  tolerated  by  him,  but  the  Zwinghanism 
which  he  discovered  lurking  beneath  them. 

If  we  study  carefully  the  bearing  of  Luther  in  the  period  imme- 
diately following  the  negotiations  above  described,  we  shall 
observe  that  he  does  not  regard  himself  as  limited  in  the  least, 
in  the  discharge  of  the  duty  of  testifying  against  the  errors  of 
Zwingli,  by  his  relations  with  the  other  Swiss  theologians.  In  the 
year  immediately  following,  1539,  he,  in  his  tract.  Von  dcu  Coii- 
ciliis  und  Kirchen,  charges  Zwingli  with  Nestorianism,  and  men- 
tions with  him  other  Nestorians  against  whom  he  has  had  to 
contend."  He  again  refutes  his  arguments  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  a  letter  to  Francis  Rheva,  Count  of 
Thuin,  who  had  been  unsettled  in  his  faith  by  them.'  In  reply 
to  the  argument,  that  the  body  of  Ciirist  cannot  be  at  the  same 
time  in  heaven  and  in  the  saci  anient,  he  here  simply  appeals  to 
the  omnipotence  of  God,  and  to  John  iii.  13.  In  a  letter  to 
Bucer,  dated  October  14th,  he  expresses,  on  the  contrary,  the 
fullest  confidence  in  the  latter,  and  in  the  latter's  associates  as 
well.  At  the  same  time,  he  refers  in  terms  of  high  appreciation 
to  Calvin,  who  was  then  living  in  Strassburg,  and  with  whose 
Institutlo  religionis  Christiajjae  he  must  have  become  acquainted 
at  that  time.^  He  writes  :  "  Salute  most  respectfully  for  me  Drs. 
J.  Sturm  and  J.  Calvin,  whose  little  books  I  have  read  with 
singular  pleasure."  Calvin,  who  reported  this  with  great  delight 
to  Farel,  adds  the  remark  :  "  Now  think  what  I  say  there  about 
the  Eucharist."  It  is,  indeed,  true,  that,  in  view  of  the  import- 
ance of  this  doctrine,  the  approval  of  Luther  must  be  regarded  as 
having  particular  reference  to  the  treatment  accorded  fo  it  by 
Calvin — another  evidence  for  us,  that  Luther  was  at  that  time 
satisfied  with  vigorous  testimony  for  the  essential  character  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  as  a  true  reception  of  Christ,  even  where  positive 
declarations  concerning  the  bodily  presence  were  lacking.  Such 
testimony  he  here  found  in  a  form  so  full  and  vivid,  that  a 
])arallel  could  scarcely  have  been  discovered  in  the  utterances  of 
any  preacher  in  the  cities  of  Upper  Germany.* 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  314.  '■'  liriefe,  v,  199  sq. 

^  Calvin's  tract,  "  De  sncra  coena,"  did  not  appear  until  1540. 
*  Briefe,  v,  21 1.      Cf.  Henry,  Life  of  Calvin,  i,  267. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 83 

But  the  Swiss  were  by  no  means  disposed  to  bear  witli  patience 
the  assaults  upon  their  chief  Reformer.  Bullinger  protested,  in 
the  name  of  the  Zurich  ministers,  against  the  course  of  Luther. 
In  the  latter,  meanwhile,  were  aroused  anew  and  with  constantly 
increasing  force  suspicion,  indignation  and  open  hostility  toward 
the  false  teaching  which  he  now  found  to  be  not  by  any  means 
renounced,  as  he  had  hoped,  nor  even  cherished  in  silence  by  its 
adherents,  but  spreading  more  widely  than  ever.  We  have  no 
direct  information  as  to  the  precise  effects  produced  in  his  own 
mind  by  these  manifestations  during  the  period  immediately  fol- 
lowing. The  first  instance  of  renewed  passionate  utterances 
against  the  Swiss  is  found  in  his  Letter  of  J^iiiie  ijth,  1343^ 
addressed  to  the  adherents  of  the  Gospel  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Venice.  To  the  latter,  he  reports  that  reconciliation  with  one 
party  of  the  Sacramentarians  is  proving  permanent,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, with  those  of  Basle,  Strassburg  and  Ulm,  as  is  evident  from 
their  allowing  Bucer  to  labor  with  Melanchthon  in  the  reformation 
then  in  progress  at  Cologne.  But  in  Switzerland  some,  especially 
at  Zurich,  persist  in  their  hostility  toward  the  sacrament,  and  use 
profane  bread  and  wine  to  the  exclusion  of  the  sacrament — 
"  men  *  *  *  of  a  spirit  foreign  to  our  own,  infatuated 
(intoxicated)  men,  whose  contagion  is  to  be  shunned."  At  the 
same  time,  he  relates  that  the  party  with  whom  the  reconciliation 
has  been  effected  were  driven  to  the  acknowledgment  that  the 
body  is  received  also  through  the  mouth  of  the  ungodly,  and 
argues,  in  support  of  this  position,  that  for  a  spiritual  reception 
no  Lord's  Supper  would  have  been  necessary,  but  the  general 
ministry  of  the  Word  would  have  been  all -sufficient.  Very  soon 
afterward,  we  find  him  complaining  to  his  friend.  Link,  of  the 
haughtiness  and  machiess  of  the  Swiss,  by  which  they  (Tit. 
iii.  xi)  have  condemned  themselves.^  He  then,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Zurich  book-dealer,  Froschauer,  acknowledging  the  receipt 
from  the  latter  of  a  copy  of  Leo  Judae's  translation  of  the  Bible, 
renounces  all  fellowship  with  the  ministers  of  that  city,  inasmuch 
as  all  remonstrance  with  them  proves  in  vain,  and  he  does  not 
wish  to  become  a  partner  in  their  perdition,  or  in  their  vicious 
doctrines.  They  will  meet  the  judgment  which  has  fallen  upon 
Zwingli,  in  whose  steps  they  are  following.'^     A  new  Latin  edition 

1  Briefe,  v,  564  sq.  2  ibid.,  571.  3  ibid.,  587. 


184  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

of  Zwingli's  writings,  which  appeared  in  this  year  together  with 
an  apology,  did  not,  as  many  supposed,  arouse  in  the  first  instance 
the  indignation  of  Luther  against  the  Swiss,  but  must  have  been 
instrumental  in  furnishing  further  fuel  to  the  flame.  Our  atten- 
tion is  now  arrested  also  by  the  circulation  of  a  report  that  Luther 
had  himself  given  up  his  former  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  had,  to  quote  his  own  expression,  "  become  one  with  the 
Fanatics."  This  report  arose  largely  from  the  fact  that  the 
elevation  of  the  host,  which  had  been  previously  discontinued 
throughout  nearly  the  whole  of  Saxony,  had  been  recently  aban- 
doned also  in  Wittenberg,  where  Luther  had  suffered  it  to  remain 
as  a  protest  against  the  violent  measures  of  Carlstadt,  and  where 
Bugenhagen  had  for  some  time  been  laboring  to  secure  the  end 
now  attained.  That  the  incident  arrested  general  attention,  is 
evident  also  from  a  number  of  Luther's  letters ;  and  some  per- 
sons, it  seems,  regarded  it  as  a  confession  that  the  body  of  Christ 
is,  after  all,  not  truly  present  in  the  sacrament." 

Not  so  surprising  as  this  report  about  Luther  was  the  rumor 
that  Melanchthon  had  forsaken  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  Nothing 
could  have  been  more  aggravating  to  Luther  than  that,  following 
closely  upon  the  new  triumph  of  Sacramentarianism  in  Switzerland, 
there  should  be  any  apparent  justification  for  such  rumors  of  his 
own  subjugation  by  it,  or  of  his  toleration  of  it,  at  least,  in  his  most 
intimate  associate.  He  refers  to  the  matter  in  a  letter  addressed 
on  April  21st,  1544,  to  the  clergy  of  Eperies,  in  Hungary,  and, 
later,  in  a  second  communication,  under  date  of  November  12th, 
to  the  religious  allies  at  Venice."  He  gives  the  solemn  assurance 
in  these  letters,  that,  whatever  reports  may  be  circulated  about 
him,  he  will  never  tolerate  the  abomination  of  the  foes  of  the  sac- 
rament in  the  church  entrusted  to  his  care.  As  to  Melanchthon, 
also,  he  writes  to  the  Hungarians  that  he  entertains  no  suspicions. 

It  is  evident  that  Luther,  up  to  this  moment,  had  reposed 
perfect  confidence  in  the  full  acceptance  of  his  doctrine  by 
Melanchthon  and  (77V/.  supra)  Bucer.  As  to  the  former,  we 
note  the  further  significant  fact,  that  to  him  Luther  had  originally 
entrusted,  in  1543,  the  preparation  of  the  letter  to  the  Venetians 
warning  them  against  Sacramentarianism,''  a  commission  which  he 

'  Cf.  Ell.  Ed.,  xxxii,  398,  420.     Briefe,  v,  478  (cf.  ibid.,  236),  504,  550,  644. 
^Briefe,  v,  644  sq.,  697. 

'Cf.  the  letter  of  the  Venetians  which  elicited  the  response  in  question: 
Seckendorf,  Hist.  Luth.,  Lib.  iii,  \  xcvii,  Add.  iii. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 85 

was  unable  to  execute  on  account  of  his  summons  to  Cologne. 
But  even  that  intimate  tie  by  which  Luther  had  always  felt  himseK 
bound  to  Melanchthon  was  now  in  danger  of  violent  disruption. 
We  have  seen  with  what  satisfaction  Luther  had  witnessed  the 
departure  of  Bucer  with  Melanchthon  to  Cologne.  They  had 
there  together  drawn  up  for  the  Elector  of  Cologne  a  schedule 
for  the  direction  of  the  reformatory  movement,  in  which  the 
sections  treating  of  the  Lord's  Supper  were  from  the  hand  of 
Bucer.  They  asserted  :  That  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  fellowship 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in  the  celebration  of  which  we 
are  to  preserve  His  memory,  in  order  that  we  may  be  strength- 
ened in  (our)  faith  in  Him  and  remain  entirely  in  Him  and  He 
in  us ;  that  Christ  ordains  that  His  body  be  truly  offered  to  us 
for  the  remission  of  sins  and  as  a  food  of  eternal  life ;  that  who- 
ever firmly  trusts  in  the  words  of  Christ  and  in  the  visible  signs 
eats  truly  and  to  salvation  the  flesh  of  Christ  and  takes  into  him- 
self the  whole  Christ  with  His  merit  and  His  grace.  That,  even 
without  faith,  the  body  of  the  Lord  is  truly  eaten,  although  not  to 
salvation  and  without  the  reception  of  the  whole  Christ,  is  not 
asserted,  though  it  is  not,  indeed,  directly  denied.  It  was  the 
old  Upper  Germany  mode  of  speaking  of  the  sacrament — so 
expressed,  moreover,  that  even  the  Swiss  admirers  of  Zwingli 
might  be  satisfied  with  it.  This  document,  which  had  been 
presented  to  the  authorities  of  Cologne  already  on  June  2 2d,  1543, 
was  brought  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony  on  his  return  from  the  Diet 
of  Spires,  toward  the  end  of  May,  1544,  and  sent  by  him  early  in 
June  to  Amsdorf,  then  the  evangelical  bishop  of  Naumburg,  with 
a  request  for  the  latter's  opinion  of  it.  Luther,  when  writing  to 
Amsdorf  on  June  23d,*Tiad  not  yet  read  it,  but  had  in  the  mean- 
time heard  it  highly  commended,  and  Melanchthon  had,  in 
response  to  his  inquiry,  assured  him  that  the  proper  understand- 
ing and  employment  of  the  sacrament  were  taught  therein.  But 
when  Amsdorf — probably  in  July — had  forwarded  a  cutting 
review  of  the  document,  Luther,  as  he  himself  writes  to  Chan- 
cellor Briick,  aroused  by  Amsdorf's  criticism,  at  once  grasped 
the  book  and  turned  to  the  section  treating  of  the  sacrament. 
Here,  he  declares,  the  shoe  pinched  him  hard,  and  in  the  entire 
discussion  of  the  subject  nothing  pleased  him.  He  found  a  great 
deal  of  diffuse  language  about  the  benefits  of  the  sacrament,  but 
only  a  mumbling  about  its  substance,  from  which  the  reader  of 


1 86  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

the  book  could  gain  no  clear  idea,  just  as  is  usually  the  case  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fanatics.  Although  denouncing  the  Anabap- 
tists, it  has  no  word  to  say  against  the  Fanatics.  It  nowhere 
ventures  to  say  whether  the  true  body  is  present  and  received 
by  the  mouth.  The  book  is,  in  fact,  more  inclined  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Fanatics.  Moreover,  as  the  bishop  (Amsdorf) 
shows,  there  is  throughout  too  much  empty  twaddle,  which 
reveals  plainly  enough  the  agency  of  the  chatter-box,  Bucer,  in 
its  preparation.  What  a  storm  of  indignation  now  appeared  to 
be  arising  in  the  soul  of  Luther,  threatening  to  overwhelm  even 
Melanchthon  in  its  fury,  is  revealed  most  plainly  in  letters  of  the 
latteE  written  soon  afterward  :  as,  for  example,  in  one  under  date 
of  August  8th,  in  which  he  reports  that  Luther  regards  Amsdorf's 
censure  too  mild,  and  in  which  he  already  expresses  the  fear  that 
he  may  be  driven  from  Wittenberg.' 

These  were  the  days  which  afforded  the  sharpest  contrast  to 
the  years  immediately  preceding,  when  Luther  had  desired  and 
hoped  that  a  state  of  peace,  fruitful  in  beneficent  results,  might 

1  Corpus  Reformator.,  v.  113,  461,  Anm.  ;  Briefe,  v,  607,  708  sq. ;  Corpus 
Reformator.,  v,  459.  I  have  dwelt  at  such  length  upon  minute  particulars  in 
the  above,  because  a  number  of  points  illustrating  the  course  of  events  at  this 
juncture  have  heretofore  been  veiled  in  uncertainty.  That  Luther's  letter  to 
Briick,  which  is  without  a  date,  was  written  at  the  time  indicated,  is  clear 
from  the  connected  circumstances  as  above  recounted  (contrary  to  the  view  of 
DeWette,  Briefe,  v.  709,  Anm. ).  A  letter  of  Melanchthon  (Corp.  Ref.,v.  448) 
bearing  the  indefinite  date,  "  1543."  says  :  "  Laudata  est  senis  Coloniensis  con. 
fessio  ab  electore  duce  Saxonico,  a  Macedone,  a  Luthero  *  *  *;  legimus  enun 
fere  ante  mensem."  Bletschneider  thmks  that  this  letter  should  be  located  in 
July,  1544,  before  Luther  had  been  stirred  up  by  Amsdorf  s  criticisms,  and 
that  the  first  publisher  inserted  the  date  at  a  venture.  We  must  then  assume 
that  Luther  had  been  made  acquainted  with  the  book  by  Melanchthon  shortly 
after  June  23d.  In  that  case,  the  Reformer's  first  favorable  opinion  of  it  can 
scarcely  be  regaided  as  satisfactorily  explained  by  the  supposition  that  he, 
although  then  already  filled  with  renewed  suspicions  of  latent  sacramentarian- 
ism,  did  not  himself  observe  anything  amiss  in  its  contents.  We  may,  with 
more  probability,  suppose  that,  while  the  Elector's  copy  was  still  in  the  hands 
of  Amsdorf,  Melanchthon  may  have  read  a  portion  of  his  manusdript  to  Luther. 
But  such  a  partial  presentation  of  the  document  to  Luther  from  the  manuscript 
may  have  been  made  as  well  in  the  year  1543;  so  that  all  conjecture  as  to 
the  date  of  the  letter  is  needless.  Bretschneider  very  inappropriately,  and 
almost  incredibly,  adduces  Luther's  letter  to  Bruck  in  evidence  of  the  former's 
satisfaction  with  the  Cologne  publication.  His  eye  must  have  fallen  upon  the 
first  words  :  "I  am  well  pleased  with  the  bishop's  articles,"  etc.  ;  and  he  must 
have  supposed  the  reference  to  be  to  the  Bishop  of  Cologne,  instead  of  to  Amsdorf. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 87 

be  secured  among  all  the  adherents  of  evangelical  truth — these 
the  days  in  which  his  zeal  for  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  sacrament 
threatened  to  produce  an  open  breach  in  the  very  centre,  and 
among  the  foremost  representatives,  of  the  German  Reformation. 
How  he  was  led  to  assume  such  an  attitude  at  this  time,  we  have 
endeavored  to  make  in  measure  comprehensible  through  a  careful 
tracing  of  the  course  of  events  preceding.  We  find  the  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomenon  in  the  relentless  hostility  which  he  had, 
from  the  very  beginning  of  the  sacramental  controversy,  mani- 
fested toward  all  Fanaticism ;  in  a  lack  of  clearness  as  to  his  own 
views  and  feelings,  which  was  unmistakably  revealed  in  his  readi- 
ness to  accept  the  Concord ;  and  in  his  mortification  that  the 
suspicions  entertained  by  others  of  lurking  Zwinglian  sacrament- 
arianism  beneath  the  outward  acceptance  of  the  latter,  which 
suspicions  he  had  himself  suppressed,  should  now,  after  all,  be 
so  fully  justified — that  he  should  himself,  by  his  yielding  disposi- 
tion, have  actually  promoted  the  spread  of  the  error — and  that 
now,  at  length,  his  own  nearest  associates,  instead  of  standing 
up  for  the  full  truth  as  he  had  always  maintained  it,  were,  on  the 
contrary,  openly  encouraging  the  divergent  theories.  We  may 
safely  presume,  also,  that  strict  advocates  of  his  own  doctrinal 
system,  such  as  Amsdorf,  used  all  their  influence  to  fan  the 
flame  of  his  indignation  against  those  who  differed  with  them. 
In  addition  to  all  this,  he  had  just  been  irritated  anew  by  the 
fanatical  Schwenkfeld,  who  had  assailed  him  in  a  letter  and  a 
published  pamphlet,  and  who  was  novv  reported  to  have  suc- 
ceeded in  leading  astray  a  number  of  the  pastors  of  Upper  Ger- 
many.^ It  has  been  remarked  also,  not  without  reason,  that 
Luther's  physical  condition  during  his  closing  years  was  not  with- 
out influence  upon  his  disposition.  In  the  midst  of  his  increasing 
bodily  sufferings,  the  anticipation  of  death  as  near  at  hand, 
now  fully  justified  by  his  condition,  had  become  peculiarly  vivid. 
Formerly,  such  anticipations  had  impelled  him  to  the  more  earn- 
est efforts  for  the  restoration  of  harmony  during  his  life-time ; 
now,  he  dreads  the  thought  of  appearing  before  the  judgment- 
seat  of  his  Lord  before  he  shall  have  given  one  more  and  final 
testimony  against  the  foes  of  the  sacrament.'^ 

1  Rriefe,  v,  613  sq. — Tischreden,  Forstemann,  i,  324.     Corpus  Reformator., 
V,  476. 

2  Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxii,  397. 


1 88  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    I.UTHER. 

With  great  anxiety,  Melanchthon  and  his  friends  awaited  a 
demonstration  upon  the  part  of  Luther,  which  they  supposed 
would  involve  the  appearance  of  a  new  publication  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  sacrament,  which  should  be  a  veritable  "  atrox 
libei-y  The  early  appearance  of  such  a  work,  to  be  directed 
against  the  Swiss,  he  had  himself  announced  in  the  letter  to  the 
clergy  of  Eperies,  promising  also  that  in  it  Schwenkfeld  should 
not  be  overlooked.  It  was  now  noised  about  that  he  proposed, 
also,  to  pay  his  respects  to  Melanchthon  and  Bucer.  It  was 
further  rumored,  that  he  would  no  longer  be  satisfied  with  the 
conception  of  the  words  of  institution  as  involving  a  synecdoche, 
and  that  he  was  preparing  a  new  formula,  subscription  to  which 
was  to  be  demanded.'  The  Elector  himself  endeavored,  through 
the  medium  of  the  Chancellor,  to  exert  a  mollifying  influence 
upon  Luther,  and  to  persuade  him  merely  to  administer  to  Me- 
lanchthon privately  a  Christian  and  paternal  admonition. 

All  these  apprehensions  proved,  however,  to  be  groundless. 
Luther's  new  Kurzes  Bekenntniss  vom  hciligcn  Sacrament  appeared 
in  September  of  the  same  year,  1544.^  It  contained  more 
severe  utterances  against  the  Swiss  and  their  Zwingli  than  any  of 
his  earlier  writings,  but  no  reference  whatever  to  Melanchthon, 
or  even  to  Bucer.  Melanchthon  reports,  on  October  loth,  that 
he  had  assured  Luther  that  he  had  always  defended  the  theory  of 
a  synecdoche,  /.  c,  that,  when  the  bread  and  wine  are  taken, 
Christ  is  truly  present  and  makes  us  members  of  Himself;  and 
that  he  thinks  Luther  is  satisfied  with  his  position — otherwise, 
he  must,  of  course,  be  prepared  to  leave  AMttenberg.^ 

The  publication  of  Luther  is  not  so  much  a  new  exposition 
and  defence  of  the  true  presence  of  the  body,  partaken  of  also 
by  the  unworthy,  as,  rather,  simply  a  renewed  profession  of  it. 
He  describes  seven  spirits  as  having  arisen  to  oppose  it.  First 
come  Carlstadt,  Zwingli,  CEcolampadius  and  Schwenkfeld  ;  then 
a  fifth,  substituting  for  the  words  of  institution  :  "  Take  and  eat 
that  which  is  given  to  you;  this  is  my  body'';  then  a  sixth,  with 
the  interpretation  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  for  a  memorial, 
/.  e.,  this  is  a  memorial  of  my  body";  then,  finally,  John  Cam- 

'Corp.  Ref.,  v,  474,  477. 

2  Ibid.,  488.     Cf.  ibid.,  484,  497.     The  statement  of  Erl.   Ed  ,  xxxii,  396, 
that  it  did  not  actually  appear  until  the  following  year  i.s,  therefore,  an  error. 
■'Corp.  Ref.,  v,  498  sq. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    VVARTBURG.  1 89 

panus,  with  his  explanation :  "  This  is  my  body,  corpus  scil. 
paneiim  "  (/.  e.,  the  bread  is  itself  a  body  \_Kdrpe7-'\  but  is  also 
Christ's  body  [Z<?/^]  because  created  by  Him).  For  himself, 
he  proposes,  without  consulting  reason,  to  stand  simply  upon  the 
declaration  in  Rom.  iv.  2 1  :  "  What  God  promises,  He  is  also  able 
to  perform,"  and  upon  Ps.  li.  4  :  "  That  thou  mightest  bs  justi- 
fied when  thou  speakest."  '  He  expressly  again  guards  himself 
against  the  charge,  which  cannot  be  brought  even  against  the 
papal  doctrine,  of  teaching  a  local  presence  and  an  eating  of  the 
body  piecemeal  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  whole  Christian 
Church,  he  asserts,  teaches  that  the  body  is  present  definitively. 
To  the  repletive  presence  he  makes  no  allusion.  More  sharply 
than  ever  before,  he  now  demands  :  "  Believe  all,  plain  and  pure,^ 
total  and  entire,  or  believe  nothing."  He  allows  an  exception 
only  in  the  case  of  the  weak,  who  are  willing  to  be  instructed  and 
do  not  stubbornly  resist.  With  this  exception,  he  regards  every 
one  a  heretic  who  denies  a  single  article.  The  bell  cracked  at 
one  place  is  utterly  useless.  He  whc>  keeps  the  whole  Law  and 
offends  but  in  one  point  is,  according  to  Jas.  ii.  10,  guilty  of 
transgression  against  the  whole  Law.  In  the  "  prattle  "  of  the 
Sacramentarians  about  spiritual  eating  and  love,  he  sees  only  an 
effort  to  cover  over  the  poison  of  their  teaching.  He  recalls, 
in  condemnation  of  Zwingli,  especially  the  latter's  Christianae 
fidei  expositio,  in  which  he  admits  godless  heathen,  such  as 
Socrates,  Numa,  Scipio,  etc.,  to  heaven^  asserting :  Zwingli  him- 
self here  became  a  thorough  heathen.  The  Fanatics  in  general, 
and  especially  their^masters  ("  May  the  Lord  deliver  the  poor 
people  from  the  destroyers  of  souls"),  he  condemns  in  the 
following  terms  :  "  No  Christian  can,  or  should,  pray  for  them,  nor 
have  any  sympathy  for  them.  They  have  been  given  over  (to 
destruction)  and  sin  unto  death;  *  *  *  t^gy  have  been 
warned  often  enough ;  if  any  will  not  stay,  let  them  go." 

The  anticipated  attack  upon  Melanchthon  was  thus  not  realized, 
nor  was  it  ever  afterwards  made.  On  the  contrary,  Luther  soon 
afterwards  sends  to  the  Venetians  an  assurance  concerning 
Melanchthon  similar  to  that  which  he  had  before  the  alienation 
forwarded  to  the  clergy  of  Eperies.     In  the  Letter  of  November 

'  Cf.  the  simple  appeal  to  the  divine  cmnipotence;  also,  e.  g.,  in  Erl.  Ed., 
xix.,   116,  119. 


I(;0  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

I2th  already  mentioned,  he  warns  them  tha%  in  case  it  should 
come  to  their  ears  that  the  latter  or  he  himself  had  joined  in  the 
mad  folly  of  the  Sacramentarians,  they  ijhould  for  God's  sake  not 
believe  it.  That  Melanchthon  was  not  willing  to  assent  entirely 
to  his  own  statements  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament — that, 
with  all  his  acknowledgment  of  a  true  presence,  the  latter  yet 
shrunk  from  the  confession  of  a  bodily  participation  upon  the 
part  of  the  ungodly — was  not  overlooked  by  Luther  any  more 
than  by  those  friends  who  were  still  making  every  effort  to  incite 
him  to  open  hostility  against  his  associate.  He  had,  in  fact,  as 
early  as  1537  openly  expressed  to  Chancellor  Briick  his  suspicion 
as  to  Melanchthon's  attitude  toward  this  doctrine.'  If  he,  notwith- 
standing this,  now  again  smothers  his  rising  indignation,  and, 
even  after  the  above-cited  open  declarations  of  Melanchthon 
himself,  again  bears  such  testimony  in  his  behalf,  we  cannot  but 
see  in  this  a  positive  evidence  that  he  discriminated  here,  as 
before,  between  Zwinglianism  and  a  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
not  entirely  accordant  with  his  own,  but  yet  clinging  to  the 
acknowledgment  of  a  true  dispensing  of  Christ  to  the  communi- 
cant, and  that  he  did  not  regard  the  aberration  of  the  latter  as  a 
sufficient  ground  for  separation  and  dissension.  Nor  does  the 
testimonial  in  the  letter  to  the  Venetians  stand  alone.  With 
honest  appreciation,  clouded  by  no  shadovif  of  suspicion,  he 
speaks,  in  the  Preface  to  tlie  First  Volume  of  his  Latin  Works, 
written  March  5  th,  1545,  of  the  activity  of  the  associate  whom 
God  had  given  him,"  lauding  especially  the  Loci  of  the  latter  as 
an  excellent  guide  to  the  doctrine  of  piety.  The  Loci  had,  in 
the  new  revision  of  1543-4,  rejected,  indeed,  the  "  profane 
notions "  of  the  sacrament  as  a  mere  memorial  meal  for  a 
deceased  person,  and  declared  that  Christ  is  truly  present,  giving 
His  body  to  those  who  ate,  and  that  He,  as  Cyril  (in  his  Com- 
mentary upon  the  Gospel  of  'jfohn')  says,  is  present  in  us  by  a 
natural  participation,  i.  e.,  not  only  in  efficacy,  but  also  in  sub- 
stance ;  but  they,  too,  had  said  nothing  of  a  participation  by  the 
unbelieving,  and  they  had  directed  the  thought  at  once  upon  the 
inward  reception  of  the  whole  Christ,  which  occurs  only  in  the 
case  of  trae  believers,  and  of  which  Christ  speaks  in  John  vi. 

1  Corp.  Ref.,  iii.  427       Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte,  III.  ii,  201  sq. 
^  Op  ,  Jena,  I. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  TQI 

Finally,  we  find  Melanchthon,  in  the  year  1544,  entrusted  with 
the  preparation  of  a  new  document,  to  be  presented  to  the 
Emperor  in  the  name  of  the  German  Evangelical  Churches — 
the  so-called  "  Wittenberg  Reformation."  This,  when  speaking 
of  the  proper  understanding  of  the  sacrament,  which  is  necessary 
for  communicants,  says  merely,  that  it  is  a  partaking  of  the  true 
body  and  blood,  and  that  this  partaking  is  to  strengthen  faith, 
because  Christ  here  gives  to  us  His  body,  that  He  may  make  us 
certainly  members  of  Himself  and  forgive  our  sins  for  the  sake  of 
His  death,  etc'  Here  we  have  again  the  idea  of  an  aiming  at 
unification  with  Christ,  which  Melanchthon  thus  holds  in  common 
with  the  conception  embodied  in  the  Tctrapolitanal'-  Yet  Luther 
also  signed  this  document  without  hesitancy  in  January,  1545. 

The  apprehensions  of  Luther  in  regard  to  Bucer  were  also  soon 
allayed.  In  1545  he  defends  him,  with  earnest  feeling  and  in 
language  highly  laudatory,  against  Cochlaeus.  He  speaks  of  him 
also  in  the  second  letter  to  the  Venetians,  in  which  he  warns  the 
latter  not  to  allow  themselves  to  be  led  astray  by  the  Zurichers, 
Bullinger  and  Pellican,  nor  even  by  Bucer.  As  to  the  latter,  how- 
ever, he  explains,  he  has  in  view,  when  thus  speaking,  only  certain 
of  his  earlier  writings,  which  he  himself  has  not  seen ;  and  then 
adds,  further,  that  he  is  fully  persuaded  that  Bucer  was  long  since 
won  to  the  side  of  the  truth,  and  that  he  does  not,  even  in  view 
of  the  more  recent  course  of  the  latter,  see  any  need  for  now 
warning  against  him. 

LTnder  these  circijmstances,  there  is  no  internal  improbability 
in  the  report,  that  he  greeted  with  rejoicing  the  tract  upon  the 
Lord's  Supper  which  Calvin  had  meanwhile  published,  although 
it  is  open  to  question  in  how  far  Bezel's  account  of  this  incident 
is  trustworthy.^  We  refer  the  reader  to  the  statement  above 
made  with  reference  to  Calvin's  relation  to  the  doctrinal  sys- 
tem of  Upper  Germany  and  Luther's  relation  to  the  Swabian 
Syngramma.  Although  Luther  did  not  find  in  this  publication 
the  full  and  entire  truth  as  he  conceived  it,  he  yet  found  vigorous 
expression  given  to  the  ideas  which  the  theologians  of  Upper 
Germany  and  Melanchthon  held  in  common  with  himself  and  in 

'  Corp.  Reform-,  v,  58S,  618. 

^  Cf.  on  the  other  hand,  Melanchthon's  earlier  representation  of  the  matter 
in  his  Instruction  for  Inspectors,  vid.  supra,  p.  149,  note. 
^  Gieseler,  III.  ii,  171,  does  not  challenge  its  reliability. 


192  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

opposition  to  Zwinglianism.  It  is  noticeable  that  Calvin,  in 
teaching  a  true  participation  in  the  substance  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  coincides  also  with  Luther's  pamphlet  against  Zwingli  in 
the  employment  of  a  special  analogy,  appealing,  in  illustration  of 
the  impartation  of  Christ  through  the  signs  of  bread  and  wine,  to 
the  appearance  of  the  invisibly  present  Holy  Spirit  under  the  form 
of  the  dove  at  the  baptism  of  Christ  (without,  indeed,  thinking 
of  stich  a  union  of  the  sign  and  the  invisible  object  signified  as 
Luther  maintained) .  If  it  be  true  that  Luther  declared  that,  had 
Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius  at  once  spoken  as  did  Calvin  now, 
he  would  never  have  been  led  into  such  extended  disputation  with 
them,  we  must  take  it  for  granted  that,  in  such  a  case,  he  would 
have  still  noted  the  difference  between  their  views  and  his  own, 
but  that  the  opposition  would  not  have  become  so  violent.' 

Let  us,  at  this  point,  take  a  glance  at  Luther's  later  relations 
with  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  by  whom  he  had  first  been  led  to 
enter  the  lists  publicly  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  bodily 
presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Under  the  leadership  of  new 
Seniors,  who  had  been  in  office  since  1532,  they  had  renewed 
their  correspondence  with  Luther,  and  the  latter  wrote*  prefaces 
for  a  new  confession  published  by  them  in  1533  and  one  re- 
vised in  1538.  In  the  first  of  these  prefaces,  he  announces 
that,  although  he  had  first  been  somewhat  suspicious  of  them 
on  account  of  certain  of  their  expressions  in  regard  to  the 
sacrament,  yet,  after  extended  conference  with  them,  he  finds 
that  they  also  teach  a  reception  of  the  true  body.  Even  now, 
he  acknowledges,  he  cannot  altogether  adopt  their  mode  of 
expressing  themselves,  but  neither  will  he  attempt  to  compel 
them  to  adopt  his  own,  but  will  wait  until  God  shall  lead  to  a 
fuller  understanding.  We  ought  not,  he  adds,  to  quarrel  about 
words,  but  every  one  should  speak  the  truth  plainly  as  he  under- 
stands it.  Two  years  later,  all  doubts  of  any  significance  which 
he  had  still  entertained  against  their  doctrinal  position  were 
entirely  dissipated  by  the  declarations  of  new  delegates.  He 
then  testifies :  "  I  do  not  see  that  we  differ  at  all  upon  the  sub- 
ject itself,  nor  in  our  way  of  thinking  (/;/  re  sen  sentential  :  only 
we  use  different  words."     He  accordingly  omits  all  references  to 

^  We  can  upon  this  ])oint  only  express  our  agreement  with  J.  Miiller,  "  Die 
evangel.  Union,  etc.,"  p.  326. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT   THE    WARTBURG.  1 93 

the  matter  in  his  second  preface.^  Yet,  in  this  new  public  exhi- 
bition of  their  faith,  the  peculiarity  of  the  doctrinal  statements  of 
the  Bohemians  was  consistently,  and  in  a  form  which  cannot 
have  escaped  the  notice  of  Luther,  still  maintained.  They  teach, 
indeed,  a  presence  upon  earth  of  the  whole  God-man  who  has 
been  exalted  to  heaven,  a  special  presence  in  the  hearts  of 
believers,  and,  finally,  a  presence  of  a  peculiar,  "  sacramental  " 
kind  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  it  is  still  always  only  a  "  spiritual 
mode  of  existence,"  or  presence,  whilst  in  regard  to  the  presence 
of  Christ  in  heaven  they  accept  "  the  corporeal  or  personal 
mode  of  existence."  They  know  no  other  sacramental  reception 
than  that  implied  in  the  confession,  that  in  the  holy  external 
transaction  instituted  by  Christ,  He  Himself  is  brought,  with  all 
His  resources  (benefits),  into  the  spirit  of  the  believer.  This 
may  be  said  also,  they  hold,  in  regard  to  baptism  as  well.^ 

That  Luther  should  have  demanded  no  more  from  the  Bohe- 
mian Brethren  is,  especially  in  view  of  the  kind  treatment  which 
he  had  accorded  them  at  an  earlier  period,  perfectly  intelligible 
at  a  time  when  the  prospects  seemed  so  bright  for  securing  a 
general  concord  among  Protestants.  But  we  find,  on  the  other 
hand,  as  early  as  the  year  1541,  before  the  Reformer  had  been 
drawn  into  a  position  of  renewed  hostility  against  the  Swiss 
(although  his  aversion  to  all  sacramentarianism  had  then,  indeed, 
been  already  enkindled  anew  by  BuUinger's  defence  of  Zwingli) ,  a 
new  expression  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  Waldenses,  /.  e.,  the 
Bohemians,  or  Moravians.  He,  at  that  time,  instructs  George 
Major  to  write  to  the  pastor  "  in  Valle,"  who  must  have  stood  in 
intimate  association  and  intercourse  with  these  "  Waldenses,"  ^ 
that  he  cannot  believe  that  they  are  in  earnest  in  appealing  to 
him  in  support  of  their  denial  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  sacrament ;  that  they  should  not  forget  how  long  he  had 
argued  with  them  over  their,  to  him,  suspicious  statement,  that 
the  body  of  Christ  is  sacramentally  in  the  bread,  until  they  had, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  319  sqq.  Seidemann,  Lutherbriefe,  p.  42.  Walch,  Lu- 
ther's Schriften,  xiv,  345  sqq. 

^Cf.  also  especially  the  extended  explanations  of  the  "Apology"  (Lydius, 
Waldensia,  sect,  ii,  pp.  92  sqq.),  which  they  sent  with  their  confession  to 
Wittenberg  in  1538.  According  to  Lasicius,  Lib.  v,  sec.  82,  the  documents 
sent  were  there  examinad  by  Jonas,  Bugenhagen,  Cruciger  and  Melanchthon. 

^  Briefe,  v,  349. 

13 


194  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

at  length,  plainly  and  publicly  confessed  that  the  body  is  truly 
present  sacramentally,  /.  e.,  invisibly  and  for  our  use,  and,  more- 
over, that  it  is  the  true  body  itself ;  that,  if  it  should  now  prove 
that  they  had  deceived  him  with  treacherous  words,  he  would 
publicly  denounce  them  as  graceless  liars  and  hypocrites,  and 
free  his  name  from  all  complicity  with  the  error  which  they  now 
seek  to  attribute  to  him.  In  the  attitude  which  he  here  assumes 
toward  the  Bohemians,  we  have  an  instructive  prelude  to  the 
similar,  but  more  decided,  breach  which  so  soon  afterward 
occurred  between  himself  and  the  Swiss.  But  in  this  case  the 
alienation  seems  to  have  proceeded  no  farther.  No  trace  of  it 
can  be  detected  in  the  historical  records  of  the  Brethren.^  In 
the  year  following,  although  the  Brethren  had  not  in  the  interval 
placed  any  different  interpretation  upon  the  language  of  their 
confession,  /.  e.,  had  not  employed  it  in  any  greater  conformity 
to  the  doctrinal  conceptions  of  Luther,  he  nevertheless  continued 
the  most  friendly  intercourse  with  their  leaders.  After  having 
again,  in  1542,  enjoyed  a  visit  from  their  Senior,  John  Augusta, 
he  writes  to  the  latter  :  "  I  admonish  you  in  the  Lord  to  continue 
to  the  end  in  communion  of  spirit  and  doctrine  with  us  as  you 
have  begun."  He  had  said  to  Augusta  personally,  as  the  Bohe- 
mians report :  "  Do  you  be  the  apostles  of  your  Slavonic  race,  and 
I,  with  my  associates,  will  be  those  of  my  German  race."  ^  When 
afterwards,  in  his  Kurzes  Bekenntniss  vom  Abeiidmahl,  recounting 
the  various  forms  of  the  sacramentarian  spirit  and  his  conflict  with 
the  latter,  he  would  have  had  abundant  opportunity  to  include  the 
Bohemian  Brethren,  if  he  regarded  them  at  all  in  the  same  light. 
But  he  never  mentions  them  at  all  in  such  connection. 

The  case  was  entirely  different,  however,  with  the  opinion 
entertained  of  the  Swiss  by  Luther  until  the  day  of  his  death. 
The  reply  of  the  Zurich  clergy,  in  1545,  to  his  Leeren  Verldiimd- 
ungen,  Ldsterungen,  etc.,  in  which,  despite  Calvin's  earnest  pro- 
test, they  ignored  all  considerations  of  respect  for  the  character 
and  services  of  the  great  Reformer,  coula  but  confirm  him  in  the 
conviction  that  all  further  attempts  at  reconciliation  upon  his  part 
would  be  in  vain.     He  maintained,  therefore,  toward  them  the 

'  Cf.  in  Lasicius.  Even  Gindely,  who  regards  with  no  favor  the  friendly 
attitude  of  Luther  toward  the  Bohemians,  makes  no  mention  of  it. 

^  Briefe,  v,  500.  Cf.  vi,  466,  Anm.  Lasicius,  Lib.  v,  §  99.  Comenius,  His- 
toria  fratrum,  Halae  1702,  p.  26. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 95 

attitude  assumed  in.  his  Kiirzcs  Bckeuntniss.  Further  expressions 
occurring  in  his  writings  leave  no  possibility  that  he  can  have 
entertained,  at  any  moment  in  the  closing  years  of  his  life,  any 
milder  sentiments  in  regard  to  them.  Upon  reading  their  reply 
above  alluded  to,  he  declared  that  he  would  make  only  the  briefest 
possible  response  to  the  incorrigible,  haughty  Fanatics.  Mean- 
while, he  reiterated  his  opinion  of  them  in  his  theses,  Wider  die 
32  Artikel  der  Theologisteii  zu  Lowen,  1543,  as  follows  :  "  We 
earnestly  declare,  that  the  Zwinglians,  and  all  revilers  of  the 
sacrament,  who  deny  that  *  *  *  the  true  and  natural  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  orally  received,  are  assuredly  heretics  and 
severed  from  the  Holy  Church."  For  himself,  he  confesses  that, 
"  In  the  sacrament  of  the  altar,  which  should  be  adored  with  all 
reverence,  the  natural  body  is  dispensed  and  received  *  *  * 
both  by  the  worthy  and  by  the  unworthy."  It  was  still,  at  that 
time,  his  purpose  to  prepare  a  paper  specifically  against  the 
Zwinglians.  So  late  as  January  17th,  1546,  emaciated  and  longing 
for  the  repose  of  the  heavenly  world,  he  expresses  his  gratification 
that  the  Swiss  should  be  so  incensed  against  him,  and  should  de- 
nounce him  as  a  miserable  man,  excluded  from  the  favor  of  God. 
Thus  he  has,  he  declares,  at  last  attained  what  he  had  desired,  i.  e., 
that  they  should  themselves  acknowledge  that  they  are  his  enemies. 
He,  the  "  most  miserable  of  men,"  is  well  content,  on  the  other 
hand,  with  the  benediction  of  the  Psalm :  "  Blessed  is  the  man 
who  w'alketh  not  in  the  counsel  of  the  Sacramentarians,  nor 
standeth  in  the  way  of  the  Zwinglians,  nor  sittelh  in  the  seat  of 
the  Zurichers."  Upon  the  same  day,  he  once  more,  in  the  last- 
sermon  which  he  ever  delivered  at  Wittenberg,  declaimed  warmly 
against  the  accursed  harlot,  Reason,  upon  which  those  fanatical 
spirits,  the  Sacramentarians,  depend,  when  they  inquire  how  God 
can  give  His  body  in  the  bread.  We  should  listen  to  the  Son  of 
God,  who  declares :  "  This  is  my  body,"  and  trample  reason 
under  our  feet.  But  these  (Fanatics)  are  so  shrewd,  that  no  one 
can  get  the  better  of  them  (show  what  fools  they  are).  If  one 
should  have  them  in  a  mortar  and  grin-d  them  with  the  pestle, 
he  couldn't  cnish  the  folly  out  of  them.'  Six  days  after  the 
delivery  of  this  sermon,   the  great  Reformer  started   upon   his 

1  Briefe,  vii,  728,740,  743.     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,   171  sq.     Briefe,  v,  759,  778. 
Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  144  sqq. 


196  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

journey  to  Eisleben,  where,  on  February  iSth,  he  closed  his  eyes 
in  death.' 


We  have  now  reviewed  the  historical  process  through  which 
the  theological  views  and  teaching  of  Luther,  although  these 
were  already,  in  all  their  fundamental  elements,  firmly  established 
when  he,  under  their  guidance,  stepped  boldly  out  of  the  Church 
which  lay  still  steeped  in  error,  were  yet,  in  important  respects 
and  in  significant  particulars,  further  developed,  assuming  a  more 
definite  character  and  finding  expression  in  clearer  formulae.  This 
was  the  case  in  the  relation  which  his  views  sustained  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  form  of  Christianity,  and  peculiarly  so  in  their 
relation  to  the  opposition  encountered  from  the  newly-arisen 
Fanaticism. 

In  this  course  of  development  we  have  seen  that,  along  with 
the  doctrines  which  were  brought  into  most  prominent  discussion 
because  of  the  advocacy  of  contrary  views,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  Christ  bore  an  especially  important  part.  As  now  this 
latter  doctrine  was  drawn  into  the  discussion  as  a  premise,  or 
basis,  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  latter  being  the 

^It  has  been  said,  as  is  well  known,  that  Luther,  before  starting  upon  his  last 
journey  to  Eisenach,  confessed  to  Melanchthon  that  he  had  gone  too  far  in  his 
zeal  against  the  Sacramentarians.  This  can  no  longer  be  dismissed  as  a  bare 
rumor  or  invention,  since  an  autograph  report  of  the  affair,  given  by  Harden- 
berg,  has  been  published  (in  the  Reform.  Kirchenzeitung,  1853,  No.  40).  Ac- 
cording to  this,  Hardenberg  testified  under  oath  in  1556,  that  he  had  heard 
from  the  lips  ot  Melanchthon  that  I>uther,  before  undertaking  the  journey,  had 
said  that  he  must  confess  that  far  too  much  had  been  done  in  the  matter  of 
the  Sacrament ;  that  he  had  himself  often  thought  of  mollifying  the  matter  by 
means  of  a  special  publication,  in  order  that  the  Church  might  again  become 
harmonious;  that,  as  affairs  then  stood,  the  whole  doctrine  would  come  to  be 
regarded  with  suspicion;  that  he  commended  the  matter  to  God  ;  and  that 
Melanchthon  and  the  rest  might  be  able  to  accomplish  something  in  this  di- 
rection after  his  death.  According  to  this,  his  temper  was  yet  once  more  re- 
markably changed  as  he  reflected  upon  his  approaching  death.  Nor  dare  we 
assert  the  impossibility  of  such  a  change.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  venture  to 
place  by  the  side  of  the  above-cited  recorded  expression  of  Luther  a  merely 
verbal  report  of  such  far  different  tone,  which  may  easily,  in  the  course  of  the 
intervening  years,  have  at  least  lost  much  in  accuracy  while  treasured  only  in 
the  recollection  of  Hardenberg,  or  indeed,  in  that  of  Melanchthon  himself. 
Cf.  also  the  opinion  of  Planck  (Geschichte  des  prot.  Lehrbegriffs,  iv,  27), 
which  certainly  is  not  warped  by  prejudice,  upon  the  internal  credibility  of  the 
report. 


AFTER    RETIREMENT    AT    THE    WARTBURG.  1 97 

immediate  subject  of  controversy,  it  necessarily  followed  that  the 
emphasis  which  Luther,  in  contrast  with  the  position  of  his  antag- 
onists and  finding  occasion  in  that  very  position,  laid  upon  those 
aspects  and  points  of  doctrine  which  he  was  compelled  to  main- 
tain against  their  assaults,  must  in  turn  react  upon  his  conception 
of  other  phases  of  scriptural  truth.  The  emphasis  which  is  placed, 
in  opposition  to  the  theories  of  Fanaticism,  upon  the  objective 
means  of  grace,  and,  still  more,  that  accorded  to  an  established 
ecclesiastical  order  as  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,  could 
not  but  exercise  a  decided  influence  upon  his  conception  of  the 
Church  in  general.  We  shall  also  find  this  same  characteristic 
feature  of  the  Reformer's  teaching  producing  a  positive  effect 
upon  his  conception  of  the  relation  of  the  devout  human  con- 
sciousness to  the  gracious  divine  decree,  in  so  far  as  God,  in  the 
fulfilment  of  the  latter,  directs  us  to  these  means  of  His  grace. 

There  is,  however,  no  other  single  doctrine  which  comes  into 
such  prominence  in  the  historical  development  of  the  Reformer's 
views  as  those  which  we  have  been  examining — none  which 
became  so  specifically  a  subject  of  formal  negotiations,  or  was  so 
specifically  and  deliberately  carried  out  to  increased  accuracy 
of  statement  by  Luther  himself.  Even  those  upon  which  we  have 
had  occasion  to  comment  were,  after  all,  but  a  further  refinement 
of  the  principles  before  asserted,  inclining  in  certain  definite 
directions.  The  modifications  which  are  observable  in  other 
leading  articles  of  faith  are  manifestly  but  relative,  referring  not 
to  the  chief  contents  of  the  doctrines  themselves,  but  only  to  the 
measure  in  which  one  or  another  is  proportionally  emphasized 
and  applied  ;  and  this  proportionate  emphasis,  again,  might  vary 
according  to  the  circumstances  under  which  Luther  was,  from 
time  to  time,  called  upon  to  express  his  views.  This  was  espe- 
cially true  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Church. 
The  leading  elements  of  this  doctrine  were  already  permanently 
fixed  in  the  period  with  which  our  present  book  opens,  /.  e.,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  spiritual  communion  of  believers  in  Christ, 
living  in  the  world  and  yet  not  belonging  to  it ;  on  the  other 
hand,  the  outward  signs  and  means  of  grace.  We  have  already 
indicated  the  influence  of  the  further  historical  development 
upon  these  fundamental  principles.  To  these  particulars  must 
be  yet  added,  especially,  the  significance  attached  to  the  divinely- 
ordained  secular  authorities  and  national  ordinances  and  forces  in 


190  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  maintenance  and  defence  of  Christendom  and  the  Church. 
Luther's  appeal  to  the  nobiUty  and  princes  of  the  reahn  in  his 
Address  to  tlie  Nobility  is  sufficient  evidence  that  he  at  that  time 
had  decided  views  upon  this  point. 

We  may,  therefore,  refrain  from  a  further  historical  exhibition 
of  separate  opinions  and  declarations  of  Luther,  which  we  could 
not,  in  any  event,  place  in  their  proper  hght  except  in  the  sys- 
tematic presentation  of  his  entire  doctrinal  system.  We  will,  on 
the  other  hand,  in  the  course  of  our  general  review,  return  to  note 
occasionally  what  may  call  for  further  remark  as  bearing  upon 
the  historical  development  of  Luther. 

We  have  taken  occasion,  also,  when  discussing  the  leading  doc- 
trines which  have  claimed  our  attention,  to  refer  from  time  to 
time  in  advance  to  many  of  the  items  which  it  will  be  our  task 
to  present  at  length  in  the  remaining  Book.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  must  have  been  evident  to  the  reader,  from  the  whole  course 
of  the  preceding  discussion,  that  certain  harmonious  principles 
held  sway  in  the  mind  of  Luther  from  the  very  beginning,  by 
which  fact  we  are  assured  in  advance  of  the  possibility  of  arrang- 
ing his  views  and  teachings  in  thorough- going  inner  harmony. 


BOOK  IV. 

THE   DOCTRINAL  VIEWS  OF  LUTHER  PRE- 
SENTED IN  SYSTEMATIC  ORDER. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


A.  General  Character  of  Luther's  Teaching. 

We  have  now  traced  up  to  the  close  of  our  Reformer's  Hfe  the 
course  of  historical  development  by  which  the  grand  outlines  of 
his  theology  gradually  attained  their  definite  and  abiding  form. 
There  yet  remains  for  us  the  task  of  presenting  a  summary  of  the 
latter  as  a  finally  completed  and  inwardly  consistent  whole.  In 
attempting  to  conduct  such  a  review,  we  shall  find  it  necessary  to 
take  our  position  in  the  closing  period  of  Luther's  life.  Up  to 
this  point  of  time,  we  have  occasion  to  observe  certain  modifica- 
tions in  his  treatment  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
manifested,  particularly,  in  the  argument  in  its  support  (in  which 
we  find  him  no  longer  appealing  to  the  "  repletive  presence  "  of 
the  body  of  Christ)  and  in  the  opinion  which  he  entertained  of 
its  opponents,  so  clearly  revealed  in  his  renewed  condemnation 
of  the  Swiss  as  Zwinglians,  despite  their  recent  acceptance  of 
propositions  in  greater  harmony  with  his  own  views.  We  find 
also,  within  the  last  decade  of  his  life,  a  fuller  exposition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Law  than  at  any  earlier  period.  Yet  these  modi- 
fications do  not  involve  any  profound  or  essential  changes  in  his 
doctrinal  position.  For  actual  advances  of  this  ■  character  we 
must  look  to  the  time  of  the  controversy  with  Zwingli.  And  for 
the  unfolding  of  his  theology  in  general,  in  the  form  which  it  per- 
manently retained,  we  must  go  back  still  farther,  /.  e.,  to  the  time 
when,  himself  in  the  full  tide  of  his  reformatory  activity,  he  was 
first  confronted  by  the  spirit  of  fanaticism,  and  promptly  cast 
himself  with  all  his  power  and  skill  into  the  field  against  it.  He 
himself  refers,  in  1528,'  for  a  statement  of  the  views  which  he 
had  up  to  that  time  advanced,  to  his  publications  of  the  preceding 
four  or  five  years.  We  must,  therefore,  combine  with  the  writings 
of  the  years  thus  indicated  those  of   the  Reformer's  later  life  as 

^  In  the  "  Grosses  Bekennlniss  voni  Abendmahl,"  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  372. 
(  201  ) 


202  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  products  of  essentially  one  chief  period.  They  will  all  furnish 
us  material  aid  in  the  execution  of  our  present  purpose. 

Yet,  so  far  as  the  central  point  of  Luther's  theology  is  con- 
cerned, its  general  fundamental  principles,  and  the  great  majority 
of  its  separate  doctrinal  conceptions,  even  these  epoch-making 
years,  as  we  must  have  long  since  obsei-ved,  by  no  means  recorded 
any  such  a  revolution  as  to  exempt  us  from  the  necessity  of  still 
keeping  in  view  the  writings  of  the  preceding  period,  beginning 
with  A.  D.  15  17,  and,  still  further,  those  of  yet  earlier  date.  For 
such  important  doctrines,  indeed,  as  those  of  the  Work  of  Christ, 
of  Justification,  and  of  the  Nature  of  the  Church,  the  last  great 
period  furnishes  very  little,  if  any,  new  material.  It  was  only 
because  the  leading  points  in  the  revolutionized  conception  of 
these  doctrines,  as  presented  by  Luther,  had  already  claimed  our 
attention,  that  we  were  enabled  in  Book  II L  to  refrain  from 
further  examination  of  the  materials  illustrative  of  these  points 
furnished  by  the  period  then  under  review,  and  that,  even  in  our 
study  of  the  still  earlier  period,  we  were  able  to  refer  for  a  fuller 
exposition  of  these  doctrines  to  this  closing  Book,  in  which  we 
shall  be  at  liberty  to  cite  at  once  from  both  the  earlier  and  the 
later  writings  of  the  Reformer.  Any  historical  distinctions 
observable  in  the  treatment  of  particular  phases  of  these  leading 
doctrines  must  now  be  duly  noted. 

Although  the  theology  of  Luther  was,  from  the  very  first,  distin- 
guished by  the  clearness  and  certainty  of  its  fundamental  principle 
and  by  the  inner  unity  and  the  harmonious  connection  of  its  con- 
stituent elements,  and  although  it  is  thus  peculiarly  susceptible  of 
systematic  presentation,  yet  the  idea  should  never  for  a  moment 
be  entertained  that  he  himself  ever  sought  to  cast  it  into  the  form 
of  a  peculiar  scientific  system.  In  not  a  single  one  of  his  writings 
has  he  discussed  with  equal  fulness,  or  thoroughness,  all  the  leading 
doctrines  of  Christianity.  This  is  not  done  even  where  it  was 
his  express  purpose  to  summarize  the  entire  contents  of  the 
evangelical  faith,  as,  e.  g.,  in  confessions,'  in  discussions  of  the 
chief  articles  of  Christian  faith  embodied  in  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
and  in  the  Larger  and  Smaller  Catechisms.  Even  in  such  writ- 
ings as  these,  a  very  marked  prominence  is  given  to  those  points 

iCf.,e.  g.,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx.  363  sqq.,  where  he  proposes  to  confess  his  faith 
"article  by  article."  Yet  even  to  this  confession  maybe  applied  what  has 
been  above  said  of  the  Work  of  Christ. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  203 

of  doctrine  in  defence  of  which  against  the  assaults  of  ancient  or 
modern  errorists  a  particularly  definite  and  vigorous  confession 
appeared  to  be  required.  We  there  find,  for  example,  the  most 
positive  assertions  of  the  principle,  that  salvation  is  to  be  attained 
only  in  Christ,  and  upon  the  ground  of  His  work  of  atonement 
and  of  the  unity  of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ ;  but 
we  find,  on  the  other  hand,  no  closer  analysis  of  the  Work  of 
Christ,  although  other  writings  of  Luther,  and  particularly  those 
of  a  practical  character,  abundantly  testify,  not  only  what  great 
importance  he  attached  to  the  latter  doctrine,  but  how  richly 
and  vividly  also  it  had  been  developed  in  his  own  mind. 

But  how  fully,  it  may  be  further  asked,  does  the  form  in  which 
Christian  truth  stood  revealed  to  his  thought  and  found  expression 
in  his  writings  establish  a  claim  to  acknowledgment  as  a  peculiar 
scientific  system?  In  reply,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  that 
evangelical  truth  is  here  presented  as  a  brilliant  and  harmonious 
whole,  marked  by  a  full  and  fine  discrimination  even  in  its  concrete 
form.  Every  separate  feature  is  moulded  in  conformity  with  the 
supreme,  ruling  ideas,  and  is,  and  remains,  thoroughly  permeated 
by  them.  The  speculative  talent  which  formed  part  of  the  native 
endowment  of  Luther,  and  which  is  displayed,  for  example,  in 
the  striking  originality  of  the  Christinas  Sermon  of  A.  D.  IJIS, 
with  its  affinity  for  both  Mysticism  and  the  system  of  Aristotle,  is 
ever  afterwards  clearly  discernible  in  his  writings.  We  shall  have 
occasion  to  observe  how  deeply,  inspired  by  a  believing  apprehen- 
sion of  the  divine  proffer  of  salvation,  he  penetrates  into  the  very 
nature  and  heart  of  God ;  and  then,  again,  how,  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  revelations  and  presentations  of  this  God,  everything  is 
derived  from,  and  interpenetrated  by,  the  comprehensive  funda- 
mental ideas.  In  these  respects,  Luther  manifests  an  endowment 
which  was  lacking,  for  example,  in  Melanchthon.  But  this,  in 
itself,  by  no  means  furnishes  all  that  is  required  for  a  logically 
consistent  and  satisfactory  exhibition  of  the  truth.  That  which 
might  still  be  lacking,  despite  the  possession  of  such  high  spiritual 
endowment,  and  which  is  actually,  in  part,  conspicuously  lacking 
in  the  case  of  Luther,  may  find  illustration,  for  example,  in  his 
treatment  of  the' doctrine  of  the  atonement.  In  his  presentation 
of  this  central  truth  we  shall  find  a  full  confirmation  of  what  has 
been  said  as  to  the  scope,  the  loftiness,  and  the  profundity  of  his 
conceptions  :  but  if  we  attempt  a  logical  analysis  of  the  separate 


204  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ideas  involved,  and  seek  to  set  each  by  itself,  bounded  by  precise 
and  unvarying  limitations,  there  will  remain  for  us  many  open 
questions.  Then,  again,  our  inquiries  will  often  remain  unsatisfied 
if  we — as  notably,  for  example,  in  the  doctrine  concerning  the 
person  of  Christ — look  to  his  writings  to  find  the  relation  between 
two  phases  of  a  given  truth  which  are  to  be  reconciled  to  one 
another  clearly  and  accurately  defined  in  their  points  of  mutual 
contact.  Perfectly  correct  principles  may  inspire  utterances 
which  are  seemingly  of  directly  opposite  tendency,  and  a  pro- 
found general  intuition  may  underlie  the  whole ;  and  yet  it  may 
appear  impossible  to  demonstrate  that  the  two  phases  of  the  sub- 
ject, as  separately  defined,  are  not  mutually  destructive,  but 
capable  of  reconciliation — that,  consequently,  the  principles  and 
fundamental  conceptions  in  question,  true  in  themselves,  have 
really  been  separately  expressed  in  terms  strictly  accurate. 
Another  instance  in  which  the  suspicion  that  conceptions  directly 
contrary  to  one  another  have  been  embraced  is  inevitably  aroused 
is  found  in  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  absolute  decrees  of  the 
divine  omnipotence,  upon  the  one  hand,  and  the  fundamentally 
ethical  nature  of  God  upon  the  other.  The  question  here  arises, 
whether  the  strictly  evangelical  principle,  which  moulds  and  con- 
trols the  general  view  of  Luther,  has  actually  penetrated  all  his 
thought  and  brought  his  ideas  on  this  subject  into  real  harmony 
with  itself.  Li  all  these  cases,  the  question  is  forced  upon  us, 
in  what  peculiar  general  characteristic  of  Luther's  cast  of  thought 
and  method  of  doctrinal  expression  we  are  to  find  the  explanation 
of  the  fact,  that  he  did  not  more  concern  himself  in  the  harmoni- 
ous combination,  analysis,  limitation  and  uniform  presentation  of 
the  various  elements  of  the  truths  which  he  so  zealously  pro- 
claimed. The  problem  is  solved,  when  we  remember  that  the 
grandeur,  sublimity  and  wealth  of  his  theological  apprehension 
and  teaching  rest  essentially  upon  an  immediate  and  large  per- 
ception, intuition  and  comprehension  of  the  truth,  which  casts 
comparatively  far  into  the  background  that  disposition  and 
capacity  of  the  intelligence  which  aims  at  a  thorough  elaboration 
of  the  various  separate  items  and  phases  of  a  subject,  at  the 
formulation  of  conceptions,  and  at  logical  or  dialectical  system- 
atization.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
original  impulse  is,  with  Luther,  never  a  strictly  scientific  one,- 
but  always  practical  and  religious,  bent  upon  presenting  the  truth, 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  205 

which  he  apprehends  in  his  own  life  as  sai'iug  truth,  to  the  minds 
of  others  also  as  standing,  in  its  entire  scope,  in  most  intimate 
relation  to  life  and  salvation.  It  is  to  be  observed,  also,  that 
Luther  cherishes  the  firm  conviction  that  this  truth  can  be  dis- 
covered only  in  an  objectively  given  Word  of  Life,  namely,  that 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  can  be  drawn  only  from  that  source. 
These  considerations  make  it  very  evident  why  he  does  not  give 
himself  more  concern  about  the  deficiency  of  his  theological  pub- 
lications in  the  particulars  just  noted.  They  enable  us,  also,  to 
add  a  limitation  to  what  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  speculative 
tendencvof  his  mind.  Vigorously  as  he  rises  to  the  apprehension 
of  the  loftiest  ideas  and  principles,  and  thoroughly  as  his  theology 
is  penetrated  by  them,  he  yet  sternly  discourages  every  attempt 
to  pass  beyond  the  truth  designed  to  lead  to  salvation  and  life  to 
the  discussion  of  further  questions  touching  the  Supreme  Being, 
or  to  gain  a  knowledge  of  such  truth  from  any  other  source  than 
the  inspired  Word  of  Life. 

This  peculiarity  remained,  also,  an  unvarying  trait  in  the  doc- 
trinal method  of  the  Reformer.  We  find  him,  indeed,  at  a  later 
period,  employing  in  his  Christology  scholastic  categories  in  the 
construction  of  his  theory  of  the  commnnicatio  idiomatum, 
although  nothing  of  this  kind  had  before  appeared  in  his  teach- 
ings ;  but  we  have  already  seen  that,  even  in  the  formulation  of 
this  doctrine,  the  impelling  motive  was  the  practical  and  religious, 
the  striving  after  assurance  of  salvation ;  and,  moreover,  we  do 
not  even  here  find  any  dialectical  exhibition  of  the  relation 
between  the  leading  phases  and  elements  of  the  doctrine.  The 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  retains  its  peculiar  original  form.  In 
the  doctrine  of  predestination,  that  phase  of  his  theorizing  which 
first  arrested  our  attention  was  at  a  later  period  carried  much 
farther  into  the  background  by  the  force  of  the  specifically  evan- 
gelical principle  which  dominated  him.  Yet  we  can  detect  no 
effort  to  harmonize  more  fully  the  two  phases  of  his  teaching 
upon  this  subject,  but  only  the  oft-repeated  exhortation,  to  refrain 
from  worrying  over  that,  to  us,  inscrutable  feature  of  the  truth. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  can  be  no  matter  of  surprise  to  us 
that  not  all  the  doctrines  which  wc  are  accustomed  to  include  in 
a  summary  of  the  articles  of  Christian  faith  receive  uniform 
attention  and  emphasis  in  the  writings  of  Luther.  Thus,  he  has, 
in  the  undivided  attention  bestowed  upon  matters  of  specifically 


2o6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Christian  faith  and  Hfe,  only  incidentally  touched  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  the  general  revelations  of  God.  He  never,  for  example, 
entered  at  any  length  upon  the  dogmatic  problems  connected 
with  the  subject  of  Creation,  but  here  also  turned  the  attention 
of  his  readers  at  once  away  from  all  speculations,  and  fixed  it 
upon  the  practical  significance  of  the  doctrine.  How  little 
importance  he  attached  to  systematic  scientific  analysis  is  illus- 
trated, for  example,  in  the  absence  of  any  attempt  to  classify  the 
separate  divine  attributes,  although  the  peculiar  light  in  which  he 
was  accustomed  to  represent  the  chief  of  these  attributes  was  of 
the  very  highest  significance  for  his  entire  theology. 

Luther's  doctrine  is  thus  a  testimony  coming  fresh  from  the 
life,  and  designed  to  influence  life,  in  a  way  in  which  this  can 
scarcely  be  said  of  the  theology  of  any  other  teacher  since  the 
time  of  the  apostles.  Although  constantly  moving  amidst  the 
most  exalted  conceptions,  it  is  never  concerned  with  bare  ideas, 
scholastic  categories,  abstractions,  or  even  words,  but  always  with 
facts  and  with  the  highest  realities  themselves ;  and  these  appear, 
without  any  effort  upon  his  part,  to  fall  of  themselves  into  their 
places  with  inner  harmony.  At  a  time  when  the  theology  of 
Luther  found  but  slight  appreciation.  Herder  fittingly  acknowl- 
edged, in  agreement  with  our  own  judgment,  the  Dogmatics  of 
the  Reformer  in  the  following  language  :  "  It  might  be  proved 
that,  in  the  sense  of  the  mere  buffoons  and  word-architects  [that 
is,  if  we  were  willing  to  take  the  word  '  dogmaticians  '  in  this 
sense],  he  knew  nothing  of  such  word-building.  Even  in  his  last 
confessions,  in  which  it  has  been  customary  to  see  only  the  head- 
strong dogmatician,  the  man  took  everything  so  largely  and 
heartily,  without  speculation  or  mere  stringing  together  !  ^^'ho 
could  ever  see  in  him  the  champion  of  syllables,  or  the  ventilator 
of  abstractions?  The  whole  man,  ever  feeling  the  Word  of  God, 
whose  speech  is  always  of  the  Word  of  God  and  the  state  of  the 
Church,  \s\s.o  feels  all  things  ^s  great  serious  facts,  and  contends 
for  them — this  is  the  man  who  stands  before  us."^ 

It  mav  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  gold  which  Luther 
offers  us  has,  in  great  part,  not  been  so  fully  reduced  by  him  to 
the  form  of  current  coin  as  our  requirements  may  demand.     But 

'  Sammtliche  Werke,  1830,  under  Theol.  und  Relig.  xv.  242  (in  tlie  Provin- 
cial-blattern,  which,  as  J.  T.  Beck  has  leoently  lamented,  have  been  "so  out- 
rageously forgotten"). 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  207 

it  is  just  in  this  shape  that  it  possesses  for  us  a  peculiar  value. 
Many  a  particle  of  the  noble  metal  may  have  been  lost,  or  have 
suffered  damage,  at  the  hands  of  the  later  writers  who  have  cut 
it  up  and  stamped  it  into  their  own  forms.  But,  at  all  events, 
we  must  now,  in  our  historical  examination,  be  on  our  guard  lest 
we  endeavor  to  draw  or  force  out  of  Luther's  own  presentations 
of  doctrine  that  which  an  unprejudiced  historical  scrutiny  may 
find  still  lacking  in  the  directions  above  indicated. 

The  question  may  perhaps  be  raised  in  the  minds  of  some, 
whether,  in  employing  the  writings  of  Luther  as  the  source  from 
which  to  derive  materials  for  an  exhibition  of  his  theolog}',  we 
are  at  liberty  to  cite  with  equal  freedom  from  the  various  classes 
of  his  writings,  /.  e.,  the  strictly  dogmatical,  the  exegetical,  the 
practical  and  homiletical ;  and,  indeed,  whether  we  have  not 
already  frequently  erred  in  this  respect.  It  would  be  a  great 
mistake,  however,  to  suppose  that  discussions  of  such  strictly 
dogmatic  character  as  commonly  marks  theses  drawn  by  the  hand 
of  Luther  are  not  to  be  looked  for  in  any  class  of  the  Reformer's 
writings.  It  would  be  a  serious  fault  to  overlook  the  fact  that, 
on  the  contrary,  even  in  the  midst  of  practical  sermons,  the  most 
important  points  of  doctrine  receive  as  thorough  and  keen 
analysis  as  in  writings  of  any  other  character  whatsoever.  We 
need  only  inquire,  in  each  instance,  whether  in  the  passages  which 
we  desire  to  employ — whether  taken  from  controversial  dogmatic 
writings,  from  sermons,  or  from  commentaries  upon  the  Bible — 
Luther  was  really  endeavoring  to  elucidate  preciselv  the  point  of 
which  we  may  at  the  time  be  treating.  Thus,  for  example,  we  have 
above  derived  the  most  important  deliverances  upon  the  subject 
of  infant  baptism  from  the  midst  of  a  sermon.  Thus,  also,  the 
Latin  Comme7itai-y  of  LutJier  upon  Genesis  is  a  chief  source  for 
the  derivation  of  his  entire  theology,  although,  as  compared  with 
the  contents  of  his  earlier  writings,  it  offers  nothing  new.  The 
Tischreden,  however,  we  always  employ  only  incidentally;  not 
because  Luther  may  not,  even  when  at  table,  have  given  expres- 
sions of  his  views  which  would  be  of  great  significance  to  us,  but 
because  there  is  always  room  to  doubt  how  faithfully  such  utter- 
ances have  been  recorded.  We  remark,  however,  that  in  the 
published  collections  of  these  "  table  talks  "  are  included  not 
only  utterances  actually  made  under  such  circumstances.  We 
find  here  also,  for  example,  one  of  the  most  important  written 


208  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

sources,  based  on  the  teaching  of  Luther  himself,  for  his  doctrine 
of  justification.' 

B.  Range  of  Topics  and  their  Original  Mutual  Relations. 

The  cardinal  point  of  Lutheran  teaching  and  theology  is  that 
about  which  we  have  seen  not  only  the  thoughts  and  opinions  of 
Luther,  but  his  entire  inner  life  as  well,  revolving.  It  is  the  great 
contrast  Ifctiueen  sift  and  grace ;  or.  more  accurately  expressed, 
grace  itself,  /.  <?.,  t/ie  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  in  which  faith  is  to 
find  deliverance  from  sin,  guilt  and  hell,  paternal  adoption  by 
God,  and  eternal  life.  The  profoundest  aim  in  Luther's  religious 
life  and  in  his  theology  is  that  he  may  secure  a  personal  assurance 
of  this  grace  as  reliable  as  is  the  fact  that  it  is  offered.  If  we 
recall,  for  illustration,  the  conception  of  Law  and  Gospel  as 
exhibited  in  his  writings,  we  are  struck  with  the  fact,  that  in  the 
contrast  between  these  two  he  really  sees  precisely  this  contrast 
between  sin  and  grace.,/ln  the  state  of  sin,  God  stands  before  us 
as  the  Lawgiver,  who  makes  demands  upon  us,  and  before  whose 
bar  of  justice  we  are  condemned ;  but  when  He  permits  us  to 
hear  the  Gospel  message  and  experience  its  power  in  our  hearts, 
the  day  of  grace  has  dawned  for  us/  Out  of  the  agony,  the  ter- 
rors, the  "  sweating-bath,"  of  the  Law,  Luther  struggled  up  to  soul- 
satisfying  faith  in  this  message  of  grace ;  but  he  frequently  testifies 
that  he  had  still  continually  to  struggle  afresh  against  the  tortures 
of  his  earlier  experience,  which  constitute  the  fearful  temptations 
so  often  referred  to  in  his  letters.  Thus  the  profoundest  longing 
of  his  inmost  soul  remained  ever  fixed  upon  the  grace,  or  recon- 
ciliation with  God,  once  realized. 

The  attempt  has  sometimes  been  made  to  differentiate  the  Re- 
formed and  Lutheran  types  of  piety  by  asserting  that  the  former 
aims  chiefly  to  magnify  the  Glory  of  God,  which  man  is  bound 
to  conserve,  and  the  latter,  the  Reconciliation  of  which  he  may 
be  assured.  But  Luther  seeks  also  to  set  the  glory  of  God  above 
everything  else.  He  condemns  the  notion  of  any  merit  upon  the 
part  of  man,  and  all  human  righteousness,  upon  the  ground  that 
it  robs  God  of  the  glory  which  is  His  due.  He  repeats  with 
approval  a  remark  of  Staupitz  in  which  the  latter  rejoices  to 
testify  that  the  evangelical  doctrine  gives  God  alone  the  glory.     It 

'  Tischr.,  Forst.,  ii,  146  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  347  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  209 

is  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God  that  makes  him  so  eager  to  have  the 
abominations  of  the  mass  and  all  the  connected  abuses  abolished. 
Everything  in  the  Christian  world  should,  according  to  his  view, 
be  so  ordered,  that  power  and  glory  may  be  attributed  to  God 
alone.  That  we  should  seek  first  of  all  the  glory  of  God,  he  finds 
taught  in  the  Lord's  Prayer.  But  we  find  a  feature  especially 
characteristic  of  Luther  in  the  profound  harmony  in  which,  with 
him,  this  insistence  upon  the  glory  of  God  ever  stands  with  a 
similar  insistence  upon  the  direct  apprehension  of  divine  grace. 
For  in  what  way  does  he  conceive  that  God  is  to  be  chiefly  glori- 
fied? The  Father,  he  maintains,  is  to  be  glorified  in  the  Son; 
and  this  is  "  nothing  else  than  that  the  Father  be  held  to  be  a 
gracious  and  me  re  i/u/ Father,  who  does  not  cherish  anger  against 
us,  but  who  forgives  sins  and  bestows  all  His  grace  upon  us  for 
the  sake  of  His  Son.  T/u's  is  the  true  glory,  by  which  God  is 
glorified'''  In  the  recognition  of  this  fact,  that  God  is  thus 
glorified  in  the  Son,  our  Saviour,  consists  for  him  the  new  wisdom 
of  believers.  This  idea  will  meet  us  again  when  we  come  to 
consider  his  doctrine  concerning  God.  We  find,  accordingly,  in 
the  system  of  Luther,  a  due  recognition  at  once  of  the  soul's 
longing  for  salvation  and  of  the  glory  which  belongs  to  God.^ 

Luther  expresses  concisely  the  difference  between  Lajv  and 
Cd^x^/^as  follows  :  The  two  are  related  to  one  another  as  taking 
and  giving,  as  demanding  and  bestowing.  He  himself  always 
makes  these  tw-o  principles  the  basis  of  his  classification  of  the 
things  which  it  is  necessary  for  a  Christian  to  know  :  first,  the 
knowledge  of  the  Law  and,  with  it,  of  one's  own  sin  and  liability 
to  punishment ;  secondly,  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  who  frees  the 
believer  from  sin — first,  the  knowledge  of  one's  sickness  ;  and 
then,  the  remedy.-  The  highest  art  in  Christian  life  he  considered 
to  lie  in  the  proper  discrimination  between  these  two  principles ; 
and  he  could  boast  that  for  this  the  world  was  indebted  to  the 
revived  doctrine  of  the  Reformation.  Neither  the  Pope  nor  all 
his  learned  men  and  imiversities,  he  declared,  had  ever  known 
anything  of  this  art ;  and,  in  fact,  outside  of  the  Scriptures^  no 
book  had  ever  before  been  written  in  which  these  two  diverse 
subjects  had  been  handled  with  proper  discrimination.     Whoso- 

*  Comm.  ..d  Gal.,  i,  203.     Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  304;  xlv,  21 1 ;  xlix,  I30;  xlvi,40. 
'^  Erl.   Ed.,  xii,  2;   xiv,  13  sq ;  xxii,  4;  xxviii,  252  sq ;  xxix,   139  sq.  (vid. 
supra,  p.  30) ;  xxi,  94. 

14 


2IO  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

ever  now  understands  the  art  of  discriminating  between  them 
should  thank  God  and  may  account  himself  a  theologian.' 

The  second  chief  article  of  Christian  doctrine,  i.  e.,  that  con- 
cerning the  Gospel  and  the  grace  and  forgiveness  therein  offered, 
is  followed,  in  Luther's  conception,  by  the  doctrine  setting  forth 
how  the  accepted  believer  must  continually  crucify  the  old  man, 
exercise  love,  make  proof  of  his  profession  with  patience,  etc,'' 

The  doctrine  of  sin  and  grace,  with  which  the  first  two  chief 
articles  are  concerned,  he  combines  in  one  conception  as  a  matter 
for  faith,  and  from  it  he  distinguishes  love,  as  the  substance  of 
the  third  article.  We  may  embrace  the  entire  content  of  the 
Christian  intelligence  in  two  parts,  as  in  two  bags.  The  bag  of 
faith  has  two  pockets,  in  one  of  which  is  contained  our  belief 
that  we  have  all  been  ruined  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  in  the 
other,  that  we  are  all  redeemed  by  Christ.  The  bag  of  love  has 
also  two  pockets,  in  one  of  which  is  contained  the  admonition 
that  we  should  do  good  to  all  men  as  Christ  has  done  to  us,  and 
in  the  other,  the  exhortation  to  willingly  endure  all  manner  of  evil.^ 

With  these  three  chief  articles  of  faith  he  connects  the  three 
principal  parts  of  the  Catechism  as  follows :  The  Decalogue 
corresponding  to  the  first  article — that  concerning  the  Law  and 
sin ;  the  Creed,  to  the  second  ;  while  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  finall)', 
we  are  taught  to  call  upon  God  to  grant  to  us,  and  preserve  and 
increase  in  us,  faith  and  the  fulfilling  of  the  Law  (which  is  an 
outgrowth  of  faith  and  the  state  of  grace)  and  to  remove  all  that 
hinders  such  development  of  the  Christian  life.* 

These  are,  then,  the  chief  articles  of  faith  which  Luther 
endeavored  to  enforce  in  his  teaching.  The  second  of  them 
demands  a  more  careful  examination,  not  only  standing  midway 
in  the  natural  order,  but  occupying  also  by  virtue  of  its  contents 
the  central  position. 

The  grace,  whose  profifer  by  God  and  acceptance  upon  the 
part  of  man  are  presented  in  the  second  article,  is,  upon  Luther's 
theory,  to  be  conceived  as  above  all  a  sin-pardoning  grace.  It 
was  the  burden  of  guilt  by  which  he  had  been  most  sorely 
oppressed  until  relief  came  to  him  in  the  announcement  of  the 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  235  ;  x,  86.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  172,  174. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  30.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  252  sq. 

»  Erl,  Ed.,  xxii,  233.  ♦Ibid.,  xxi,  107 ;  cf.  also  xxii,  4. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  211 

forgiveness  of  sins.  Thus,  he  found  a  summary  of  the  whole 
Gospel  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which 
describe  the  body  of  Christ  as  given  y<?r  us,  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Where  there  is  remission  of  sins,  there  is  also,  for  him,  life 
and  salvation.  He  defines  redemption  itseK  as  simply  the  remis- 
sion' of  sins  (cf.  Eph.  i.  7).'  But  this  forgiveness  is  a  free  gift  of 
God  through  Christ.  It  is  to  be,  and  can  be,  attained  only  in 
a  receptive  faith,  which  is  itself  a  work  of  God.  It  is  here, 
therefore,  that  we  find  the  true  central  point  and  inmost  nature 
of  Christianity.  The  forgiveness  of  sins,  says  Luther,  presents  us 
in  two  words  the  entire  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 
The  doctrine  of  this  grace  of  God  is  "  also  the  only  part,  or 
article,  by  means  of  which  we  become  and  are  called  Christians, 
and  which  separates  us  from  all  other  saints  on  earth  "  (/.  e., 
such  as  seek  to  possess  any  other  holiness  before  God) .  "  This 
alone  makes  one  a  Christian,  namely,  that  he  comprehends  this 
article  in  faith  and  knows  that  he  is  living  in  the  kingdom  of 
grace,  wherein  Christ  has  taken  him  under  His  wings  and  con- 
tinually bestows  upon  him  the  forgiveness  of  sins.'"^ 

We  but  say  the  same  thing  in  other  words  when  we,  with 
Luther,  represent  the  principal  article  to  be  that  concerning 
righfeoustiess,  or  justification  by  grace  through  faith ;  for  the 
remission  of  sfns  and  the  justification  here  referred  to  are  inter- 
changeable conceptions.  This  is  manifest  from  all  the  utterances 
of  Luther  concerning  the  way  of  salvation  which  have  fallen 
under  our  notice,  and  will  constantly  appear  in  the  discussion 
yet  before  us.  The  believer  becomes  righteous  when  God, 
through  the  remission  of  his  guilt  for  Christ's  sake,  accepts  him 
as  righteous.  The  righteousness  of  the  Christian  embraces  more 
than  this,  but  this  is  the  fundamental  thing  upon  which  all  else 
depends.  Thus,  for  example,  we  find  Luther,  in  a  passage 
already  cited,  designating  as  the  true,  heavenly  righteousness,  or 
the  piety  acceptable  to  God,  that  which  is  called  the  grace  of 
God,  or  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  principal  article,  accord- 
ingly, consists  in  this,  that  our  heart  must  place  its  confidence 
alone  in  Christ,  that  is,  that  we  must  become  free  from  sin  and 
righteous  alone  through  faith,  according  to  Rom.  x.  10.  "  Where 
this  article  is  gone,  the  Church  is  gone."     In  commenting  upon 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  20;  ix,  380.  ^  Ibid.,  xiv,  167,  179  sq. 


212  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Psalm  cxxx.,  Luther  remarks :  "  This  treats  of  the  principal 
article  of  our  salvation,  \\3i\\\Q\y,Jits/ificafion,  the  simple  knowledge 
of  which  alone  preserves  the  Church ;  for  it  is  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  and  of  life  :  on  the  contrary,  when  this  knowledge  of 
justification  is  lost,  at  the  same  time  Christ  and  life  and  the 
Church  are  lost  "  {amiititur  Chris ius  et  vita  et  ecclesid)} 

But  because  this  doctrine  deals  thus,  on  the  one  hand,  with  the 
forgiveness  wrought  in  Christ  and  the  grace  revealed  in  Him,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  with  the  proper  reception  of  these  by  faith, 
it  does  not,  therefore,  direct  the  religious  impulses  of  man  merely 
to  an  unemotional  contemplation  of  Christ  and  of  his  own  faith  ; 
but  it  admonishes  him  rather  to  faith  as  an  act  directed  entirely 
and  immediately  upon  Christ.  It  is  precisely  such  an  appre- 
hension of  Christ  that  the  doctrine  recognizes  as  truly  Christian 
deportment.  Man  is  to  seek  and  to  possess  all  things  only  in 
Christ.  In  this  sense  the  One  central  point  is,  after  all,  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  before  us,  nothing  more  nor  less  than  Christ 
Himself.  Hence,  also,  the  very  object  of  the  preaching  of  Christ 
is  to  awaken  faith.  What  Luther  had  presented  under  the  figure 
of  the  "  bags  "  of  faith  and  love,  he  expresses  still  more  suc- 
cinctly as  follows  :  ''  It  is  said  very  briefly,  '  Believe  on  Christ,' 
and  again,  '  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself  ' ;  in  these  words  the 
doctrine  concerning  faith  is  summarized,"'^ 

To  saving  faith  in  Christ  belongs  further,  of  necessity,  faith  in 
the  nature  of  His  person  and  faith  in  His  work.  "  This  is  the 
most  important  article  of  the  Christian  faith,  that  the  Son  is  true 
God  and  also  true  man,  and  that  He  was  sent  into  the  world  to 
save  it."  Against  this,  the  devil  sets  in  array  his  army  of  error 
in  three  columns.  The  first  will  not  grant  that  Christ  is  God ; 
the  second  will  not  grant  that  He  is  man ;  the  third  (including 
the  throng  of  Papists,  with  their  own  holiness)  will  not  grant  that 
He  does  what  He  has  done.  Hence,  the  nature  of  Christ  itself — 
that  He  is  tnie  God  and  true  man  (upon  which  His  work  for  us 
depends) — is  also  called  by  Luther  "our  principal  article." 
Again,  he  embraces  all  that  Christ  has  done  for  us  briefly  in  the 
declaration,  that  this  true  God  and  man  has  died  and  risen  again 
for  us  (cf.  Rom  iv.  25).^ 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  179;   xxiv,  49.     Op.  Ex.,  xx,  176. 

*Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  361. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  44  sqq. ;   xxiii,  258  sqq. ;  xlv,  385  ;   xxiv,  1 15. 


_  SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  213 

Everything  is  thus  made  to  depend  upon  the  article  concerning 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  sent  into  the  world,  who  has  secured 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  life.  Whoever  has  this  Christ, 
has  all  things.  The  other  articles  of  Christian  doctrine,  although 
likewise  founded  upon  Scripture,  are  not  there  so  urgently  insisted 
upon.  In  this  doctrine  is,  however,  included  the  truth,  that  we 
obtain  grace,  not  through  our  own  works,  but  alone  through  the 
Mediator.  This  article  and  that  upon  justification  are  but  one. 
All  errors  have  arisen  wherever  this  doctrine  has  been  neglected. 
Whoever,  on  the  contrary,  holds  it  fast,  will  be  preserved  by  it  from 
heresy,  and  it  will  secure  for  him  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  he  shall 
be  able  to  "  differentiate  and  judge  clearly  and  plainly  "  in  regard 
also  to  all  other  articles.^ 

We  have  already  seen,  especially  in  our  third  Book,  how  the 
doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace  is  related  to  this  doctrine  con- 
cerning Christ  and  justification.  As  man  cannot  himself  work 
out  his  own  salvation,  but  must  receive  it  entirely  from  above, 
so,  likewise,  he  is  authorized  to  seek  it  only  where,  according  to 
the  appointment  of  God  and  Christ,  it  is  to  be  found ;  and  God 
has  selected  external  means  corresponding  to  the  bodily  nature 
of  man,  through  which  means  salvation  is  to  be  offered,  /.  e.,  the 
Word  and  the  sacraments.  The  opinion  that  we  can,  instead  of 
employing  these,  seek  God  and  His  salvation  by  our  own  thoughts, 
Luther  places  upon  a  par  with  the  notion  that  we  can  seek  Him 
with  our  own  vv'orks.^ 

Upon  the  doctrine  of  the  fellowship  with  the  Saviour  and  with 
all  the  members  of  His  mystical  body,  into  which  we  enter  by 
faith,  together  with  that  of  the  means  of  grace,  rests  the  doctrine 
of  Luther  concerning  the  Church. 

From  this  central  point,  Christ,  we  must  now  look  backward 
to  the  articles"  concerning  God  Himself,  the  Trinity,  and  the 
Divine  Attributes.  It  is  just  in  Christ,  and  only  in  Him,  that  the 
Father  is  known.  Thus  Luther  declares  times  innumerable,  as 
when  he  so  distinctly  asserts  that  the  article  concerning  Christ 
is  the  principal  article.'  Here  we  may  look  into  the  very  heart 
of  God.  From  this  central  point  of  view,  we  recognize  that  He 
is  essentially  Love  {ind.  under  "  Doctrine  of  God  ").  Moreover, 
the  whole  doctrine  of  salvation  leads  back  to  the  article  concern- 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  26  sqq.  2  Ibid.,  xlvii,  9.  sibid.,  1,  26. 


2  14  THE    THEOLOGY    OK    LUTHER. 

ing  God,  the  almighty  Creator,  as  a  presupposition  necessarily 
involved,  since  all  the  activity  of  God  pertaining  to  salvation, 
and,  especially,  the  efficacy  of  the  means  of  grace,  are  conditioned 
upon  the  divine  omnipotence.  It  is  the  error  of  the  Fanatics, 
in  his  view,  that  they  refuse  to  believe  the  children's  Creed  : 
"  I  believe  in  God  the  Father^  almighty  Maker,"  etc.  Again, 
whoever  adopts  this  principal  article  and  foundation  must  also 
adopt  the  other  articles.  Further,  from  the  relation  of  man  to 
God,  as  a  sinner  in  need  of  salvation,  Luther  still  looks  back — ■ 
as  he  had  done  so  frequently  during  his  special  intercourse  with 
German  Mysticism — to  the  general  relation  in  which  man  stands 
to  God,  as  a  creature  of  His  hand.  Upon  this  relation  rest,  in 
Luther's  view,  the  fundamental  commandments  given  by  God  for 
the  regulation  of  man's  moral  attitude  toward  Himself.  He  here 
argues  again,  on  the  basis  of  faith  in  God  as  the  Creator,  that 
man  can  make  claim  to  no  merit,  nor  to  anything,  of  his  own  : 
"  The  creature  comes  from  nothing ;  nothing,  therefore,  are  all 
things  which  the  creature  can  do,  if  they  chance  to  oppose  the 
Creator,  who  gave  the  creature  its  being."  He  argues  also,  that 
a  man  who  fully  believes  in  the  Creator  of  all  things  is  dead  to 
all  things,  and  must  confess  that  he  is  able  to  do  nothing  by  his 
own  power.  In  this  sense,  Luther  now  calls  also  this  article  the 
highest  article  of  faith.' 

With  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  means  of  grace  corresponds 
also,  in  the  teaching  of  Luther,  the  manner  in  which  God,  even 
before  the  sending  of  His  Son  into  the  world,  made  it  possible  for 
men  to  approach  Him, — or,  the  whole  doctrine  of  divine  revelation. 

Thus,  all  the  leading  topics  of  Luther's  Theology  appear  in 
their  harmonious  connection  with  the  central  point  of  his  religious 
belief,  religious  aims  and  religious  life,  which  was,  at  the  same 
time,  the  central  point  of  his  reformatory  teaching. 

We  have  already,  in  speaking  of  the  profifer  of  salvation  and 
the  revelation  of  Himself  by  God  to  man,  touched  upon  that 
which  is  commonly  designated  \)c\^  formal  principle  of  the  Refor- 
mation. The  general  means  by  which  the  divine  profifer  of  salva- 
tion is  tendered  to  us  is,  it  has  been  said,  the  objective  Word  of 
God,  and  this  Word  is  now  defined  as  that  which  is  given  to  us 
in  the  Holy  Sciiptures.     Salvation  is  therein  offered  to  us,  inas- 

1  Ell.  Ed.,  xix,  114  sq.,  127.     Op.  Ex.,  v,  137  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  23. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  215 

much  as  therein  the  divine  truth  which  we  are  to  recognize  and 
apprehend  in  faith  is  presented  to  our  spirit,  and  inasmuch  as, 
in  the  very  act  of  our  reception  of  this  Word,  the  divine  Holy- 
Spirit  HimseK  desires  to  open  our  hearts  to  the  understanding  of 
the  truth,  to  faith,  and  to  the  life  which  may  be  secured  by  faith, 
and  to  strengthen  and  bless  us  therein  continually.  The  con- 
ception of  the  Word  as  the  norm  of  truth  and  doctrine  is  insepar- 
ably united  with  that  of  the  Word  as  a  means  of  grace.  Nor 
have  we  thus  discovered  two  distinct  fundamental  ideas.  We 
are  merely  led  to  define  more  precisely  the  one  fundamental 
idea — Christ,  God  in  Christ,  and  saving  faith  in  Him — by  ex- 
plaining that  Christ  is  here  looked  upon  as  revealing  Himself  to 
faith  in  the  Word,  and,  through  the  Word,  communicating  Himself 
to  faith. 

But  how  far,  we  may  ask  in  conclusion,  does  the  field  extend 
which  belongs,  in  Luther's  conception,  to  the  domain  of  Christian 
doctrine?  What  is  the  peculiarity  of  chis  sphere,  as  compared 
with  other  fields  of  human  thought?  Luther  discriminates 
strictly  between  the  sphere  in  which  we  have  to  do  with  our 
inner,  immediate,  personal  relation  to  God  and  that  which  con- 
cerns our  outward  relations  to  the  created  world.  It  is,  in  brief, 
the  difference  between  that  which  is  spiritual,  eternal,  heavenly, 
and  that  which  is  secular,  temporal  and  earthly.  The  latter 
category  alone  presents  for  Luther  the  domain  of  religious  knowl- 
edge and  theology.  Here  we  must  learn  "  to  mle  the  conscience 
in  the  Spirit  before  God."  '  The  doctrine  concerning  external, 
secular  things  Luther  here  introduces  only  in  so  far  as  the  external 
activity  of  man,  in  order  to  be  well-pleasing  to  God,  must  flow 
from  the  internal  source  of  faith  and  the  spirit  of  love  derived 
from  above,  and  in  so  far  as  man  must,  even  in  all  secular  things, 
recognize  the  workmanship  of  God,  and,  particularly,  in  the 
fundamental  appointments  for  the  external  moral  life,  the  divine 
ordinances,  if  he  would  in  his  corresponding  activities  maintain  a 
good  conscience  before  God.  The  earthly  and  secular  has  here, 
on  the  other  hand,  no  place  as  claiming  recognition  in  its  inde- 
pendent character,  with  the  concrete  form  of  its  moral  ordinances 
and  essential  features  as  controlled  by  its  own  peculiar  rules  and 
requirements.     The    former    sphere   thus  appears   to  Luther  as 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,   138.  ^     - 


2l6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

peculiarly  that  of  religious  and  theological  knowledge.  The  two 
spheres  must  now,  in  his  view,  be  sharply  distinguished  with 
regard  to  the  sources,  criteria,  and  organs  of  truth  pertaining  to 
them  respectively.  In  the  former,  the  light  of  the  divine  Word 
and  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  through  the  Word  must  alone 
be  recognized.  Reason  must  here,  as  Luther  maintains  especially 
in  the  controversy  upon  the  sacrament,  be  even  designated  Frau 
Hulda,  Harlot,  etc.,  the  moment  it  attempts  to  interfere.  This 
same  Luther  always  cheerfully  acknowledges,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  secular  affairs  the  "  splendid  light  of  reason  and  the  under- 
standing," with  which  man  is  so  notably  endowed.  He  lauds  the 
noble  arts  and  sciences  which  are  its  products.  To  it  he  declares 
subject  especially  everything  which  belongs  to  man's  temporal 
life  and  to  secular  government.  Authority  and  power  have  been 
given  to  reason  and  worldly  wisdom  to  exercise  bodily  dominion 
over  cattle,  birds  and  fishes,  according  to  Gen.  i.  28,  and,  like- 
wise, to  keep  house,  rear  children,  govern  lands  and  people,  etc. 
It  was  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  give  any  instruction  concerning 
these  things,  since  this  had  been  already  implanted  in  nature  and 
deeply  written  on  the  natural  heart.  We  have  already  seen  these 
fundamental  ideas  carried  out,  especially  in  the  utterances  con- 
cerning the  Church  in  relation  to  the  papal  power,  and  in  those 
touching  the  Mosaic  Law  in  the  controversy  against  the  new 
Judaizers.  We  shall  be  hereafter  again  led  to  consider  them, 
and  more  fully,  when  treating  of  Luther's  general  view  of  the 
external  moral  life,  and  thus  also  of  the  relation  of  the  Church 
and  its  spiritual  character  to  outward  forms  and  ordinances. 
But  upon  the  discrimination  of  these  spheres  depends  also  the 
entire  doctrine  of  a  secular  righteousness,  as  possible  to  the  unre- 
generate,  and  a  sphere  open  to  all  men  for  the  exercise  of  free 
will  (cf.  the  discrimination  between  svperio7-a  and  infcrioi-a  in 
Xht.  \xt2X\%&,  De  servo  arbitrio) }  The  whole  conception  of  this 
distinction  belongs  to  the  most  important  and  fruitful  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  reformatory  truth  and  teaching.  It  is 
inseparably  connected  with  the  chief  positions  maintained  con- 
cerning righteousness,  the  Church,  etc. ;  and  by  means  of  it,  whilst 
reason  is  so  sternly  excluded  from  the  territory  of  faith,  there  is, 
upon  the  other  hand,  opened  up  to  Secular  science  a  wide  and 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  327  sq.  ;  xlix,  229,  299;   xlvii,   108;  1,  77.     Briefe,  ii,  291. 
Op.  Ex.,  iii,  212  sq. ;  xxi,  5  sq.     Cf.  also  Vol.  I.,  p.  150  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  217 

independent  field,  the  state  being,  at  the  same  time,  estabUshed 
upon  an  independent  basis,  upon  which  it  may  freely  develop  its 
own  resources. 

C.  Order  of  Presentation. 

It  may  be  thought  that,  in  accordance  with  the  order  in  which 
Luther  himself  treats  the  principal  topics  of  Christian  doctrine, 
we  should,  in  our  present  attempt  to  present  his  views  in  system- 
atic form,  begin  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Law  and  Sin,  and  then 
discuss  the  Gospel  and  the  State  of  Grace.  But  Luther's  discus- 
sions of  the  Law  and  Gospel  rest  upon  the  doctrines  of  God,  of 
the  nature  and  destiny  of  man,  of  the  general  and  original  rela- 
tion between  the  Creator  and  the  creature,  especially  man,  as 
objective  premises.  Thus  Luther  was  compelled,  for  example,  in 
his  summary  of  the  principal  articles  of  doctrine  in  the  Cate- 
chism, under  the  very  First  Commandment,  to  set  forth  the  lead- 
ing ideas  embraced  in  the  doctrine  concerning  God,  although 
the  divine  nature  and  character  are  properly  revealed  to  the 
individual  only  through  the  Gospel  and  a  believing  acceptance 
of  its  offered  grace.  The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  as  the  rule 
and  source  of  Christian  apprehension  of  the  truth,  might  likewise 
find  an  appropriate  place  in  the  exposition  of  the  relation  between 
God  and  man,  if  not,  indeed,  reserved  for  treatment  under  the 
heading  of  the  means  of  grace.  But  this,  again,  must  be  pre- 
supposed in  considering  the  utterances  of  Luther  as  to  the  nature 
and  work  of  God  and  all  the  allied  and  following  doctrines, 
inasmuch  as  the  manner  in  which  he  establishes  his  dogmatic 
principles  is  conditioned  in  advance  by  his  general  conception 
of  the  place  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  In  first  consider- 
ing, as  we  shall  therefore  do,  according  to  the  usual  dogmatic 
method,  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
begin  with  Luther's  view  of  the  method  of  divine  revelation  in 
general,  which  is  most  intimately  connected  with  his  apprehen- 
sion of  the  special  scriptural  revelation.  If,  in  doing  so,  we  shall 
here,  and  in  the  discussion  of  other  topics,  frequently,  as  may  be 
inevitable  from  the  intimate  mutual  relations  of  Christian  tmth, 
be  compelled  to  anticipate  certain  doctrinal  points  developed 
only  at  later  periods,  we  can  do  this  with  the  less  hesitancy 
inasmuch  as  ^11  the  leading  principles  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Reformer  have  been  already  presented  in  the  course  of  our  pre- 
ceding study  in  the  proper  order  of  their  historical  development. 


CHAPTER  I. 

SOURCE   OF   RELIGIOUS    TRUTH. 
I.  Methods  of  Revelation. 

WORKS   OF   NATURE SCRIFl'URE TRADITION. 

God  may  perhaps  {forte),  says  Luther  in  one  place,  have  ap- 
peared to  Adam  before  the  Fall  "  naked,"  without  any  external, 
sensible  envelopment  of  His  essential  nature  and  of  His  presence. 
After  the  Fall,  He  revealed  Himself  to  him  enrobed,  as  it  were, 
in  the  rustling  of  the  wind — to  others,  similarly,  in  later  times,  in 
the  tabernacle,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  pillar  of  fire.  Thus 
Luther  places  in  immediate  contrast  with  the  direct  vision  of 
God  special  reveladons,  in  which  God  selects  certain  particular 
sensible  objects  as  signs,  or  pledges,  of  His  presence  (as,  under 
the  new  covenant,  the  Word  and  sacraments).  But  the  idea  of 
an  envelopment,  in  which  God  now  presents  Himself  to  our  per- 
ception, may,  according  to  Luther,  be  transferred  to  the  visible 
OBJECTS  OF  NATURE  IN  GENERAL.  He,  in  One  placc,  calls  the  whole 
creation  a  "  mask  of  God  "  ;  only  in  this  can  we  see  God — not 
face  to  face,  but  as  through  a  glass  (i  Cor.  xiii.  12).' 

Thus,  as  Luther  says,  in  harmony  with  Rom.  i.  20,  the  invisible 
being  of  God,  /.  e.,  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead,  is  seen 
when  it  is  recognized  in  His  works,  etc.  Human  reason  can 
itself,  although  but  feebly,  infer  from  the  beautiful  objects  of 
nature,  and  from  the  wonderful  and  harmonious  order  of  their 
movements,  the  existence  of  an  eternal  divine  Being  from  whom 
they  have  all  proceeded,  and  by  whom  they  all  are  governed. 
God  has  Himself  implanted  in  man  sufficient  knowledge  and 
intelligence  to  guide  him  to  this  conclusion.  Thus  even  the 
heathen  Aristotle,  for  example,  by  logical  process  inferred  the 
unitv  of  the  Ruler  of  the  world.  The  goodness  and  grace  of  God 
are  also  displayed  to  us  by  these  general  works  of  His  hand.     He 

*  Op.  Ex.,  i,  16.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  143  sq. 
(218) 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  2^9 

reveals  Himself  as  a  Father  by  so  richly  pouring  out  His  blessing 
upon  the  whole  world.  Even  hints  of  the  Trinity  are  everywhere 
impressed  upon  the  works  of  creation.' 

But  we  must  discriminate  between  that  which  these  works, 
according  to  Luther,  in  themselves  contain  and  indicate  and  that 
which  man,  ensnared  in  sin,  is  yet  able  to  discern  in  them. 
Adam,  had  he  not  sinned,  would  have  possessed  a  full  insight  into 
the  significance  of  the  works  of  God.  "  He,  even  untaught, 
understood  the  works  of  God."  Even  in  the  smallest  flower  he 
would  have  recognized  the  omnipotence,  wisdom  and  goodness  of 
God.  But  fallen  man,  on  the  contrary,  recognizes  but  faintly,  as 
has  been  said,  the  existence  of  an  eternal  Being.  Under  the 
curse  and  the  terrors  of  sin,  he  fails  especially,  notwithstanding 
all  the  fullness  of  the  blessings  showered  upon  us  from  heaven, 
to  realize  the  benevolent  disposition  of  God  toward  us.  This  is 
revealed  to  us  only  in  the  special  revelation,  whose  aim  and  con- 
tent is  the  presentation  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour, 
and  which  comes  to  us  in  the  divine  Word.  The  heart  of  God 
is  first  fully  revealed  to  us  in  Christ ;  and  only  from  the  supreme 
work  of  God,  which  displays  Hi^  eternal  counsel,  namely,  the 
mission  of  Christ,  does  there  shine  forth  upon  us  the  revelation 
of  His  inmost  nature,  /.  e.,  the  existence  of  three  Persons  in  the 
one  undivided  divine  Being.  Thus,  in  the  revelation  of  Christ, 
the  two  principal  points  which  are  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
natural  apprehension  of  God  find  expression  in  their  mutual  inner 
harmony.  God  wishes  to  be  known  as  He  is  in  His  inmost  nature, 
the  eternal  Being  in  three  Persons,  and  the  heathen,  Jews  and 
Turks  only  mock  at  this  revelation.  At  the  same  time,  we  should 
recognize  Him  as  a  God  /or  us  ;  not  only  as  a  God  apart  from 
created  things,  and  looking  upon  them  from  without.  We  should 
know  what  He  thinks  of  us,  and  what  He  would  have  us  to  do. 
This  neither  the  heathen,  the  Turks,  the  Jews,  nor  even  the  Papists 
know,  and  even  when  they  call  God  true,  righteous,  wise  and 
good,  He  is  still  really  to  their  minds  a  liar,  unrighteous  and  unwise. 
Such  is  the  difference  between  the  general  knowledge  {generalis 
notitia)  and  the  special  knowledge  {notitia  prpp7-ia^  of  God.'^ 

It  is,  therefore,  only  through  the  special  revelation  of  God 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  2  sqq.  ;  xli,  352;  xlix,  93.      Op.  Ex.,  v,  304  sqq. 
*  Op.  Ex.,  i,  142.     Tisch.,  Forst.,  i,  319.     Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  4  sqq.  ;  xxi,  105  ;  xli, 
352;  xlvi,  35  sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  v,  241  sq.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  196. 


2  20  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

that  we  attain  a  proper  knowledge  of  God  and  of  religious  truth. 
This  is  the  revelation  made  in  His  Word  as  objectively  presented 
to  us ;  and  this  Word  is  embraced  for  us  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
To  a  true  appropriation  of  this  Word  to  ourselves  we  are  led  by 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  this  agency  of  the  Spirit 
aims  only  to  establish  in  the  individual  a  receptivity  for  the 
revelation  which  has  been  fully  and  sufficiently  given ;  and  even 
this  the  Spirit  seeks  to  accomplish,  as  will  be  developed  at  length 
in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  means  of  grace,  directly 
through  the  Scriptures.  Luther  knows  nothing  of  any  divine 
revelation  through  which  truth  may  be  imparted  to  us  apart 
from,  or  beyond,  the  Scriptures. 

Luther  had  already,  amid  the  anxieties  of  his  monastery  life, 
learned  to  know  how  much  may  depend  upon  the  possession  of 
such  an  objective  divine  Word.  Prompted  by  his  own  bitter 
experience,  he  ever  after  most  earnestly  exhorted  all  who  felt 
tempted  to  indulge  in  speculations  upon  the  highest  problems  of 
religious  knowledge  and  of  the  inner  life,  instead  of  yielding  to 
such  impulse,  to  cling  simply  to  the  revealed  Word.  When  the 
conflict  with  the  Papacy  had  led  to  a  strict  enunciation  of  the 
scriptural  principle  in  opposition  to  the  professed  objective  word 
of  truth  which  was  supposed  to  proceed  from  Pope  and  councils, 
Luther  was  at  once  driven,  by  the  outbreak  of  Fanaticism,  to  raise 
the  strongest  possible  barriers  against  the  new  error  which  placed 
beside  and  above  the  Scriptures  an  inner  word,  revealing  itself, 
as  was  claimed,  within  the  heart  of  the  individual  believer.  That 
man's  own  reason  could,  under  any  circumstances,  ignoring  the 
objective  Word  and  the  Spirit  from  on  high  therein  revealed,  lead 
men  to  God  or  to  the  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  was  an  idea 
excluded  by  Luther's  doctrine  upon  the  state  of  man  under  the 
dominion  of  sin.  In  the  productions  of  the  Fanatics,  attributed 
by  themselves  to  the  supposed  higher  inner  light,  Luther  sees,  in 
reality,  nothing  more  than  hxmian  wisdom,  or  reason  ;  and  in  this 
category  he  includes  the  results  of  real  thought'  and  intelligent 
reasoning,  as  well  as  those  of  subjective  emotion,  or  mere  fantasy. 
The  deliverances  of  the  Fanatics  and  the  utterances  of  the  sup- 
posed ecclesiastical  mediums  of  divine  revelation  he  regards, 
moreover,  as  proceeding  from  one  and  the  same  source.  The 
Papacy  itself  is  the  creature  of  mere  "  enthusiasm"  (fanaticism), 
inasmuch  as  the  Pope  claims  to  hold  all  laws  in  the  shrine  of  his 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  221 

own  heart,  and  would  have  us  accept  as  Spirit  and  justice  what- 
ever decision  he  and  his  Church  may  promulgate,  liowever  con- 
trary the  latter  may  be  to  the  Scriptures.  He  finds  the  origin  of 
all  heresy,  even  that  of  the  Papacy  and  of  Mohammed,  in  the 
"  enthusiasm  "  that  inheres  in  Adam  and  his  children.' 

Inasmuch  as  the  objective  divine  Word  was,  in  its  original 
introduction  into  the  world,  accompanied  with  special  miracles, 
visions,  apparitions  of  angels,  etc.,  Luther  does  not  deny  the 
possibility  of  revelations  of  this  kind  at  the  present  day.  But  he 
always  gives  prominence,  even  when  dealing  with  the  history  of 
the  old  covenant,  to  the  fact,  that  every  new  revelation  of  truth 
and  every  new  human  instrumentality  employed  in  its  dissemina- 
tion stood  in  intimate  connection  with  the  divine  Word  previously 
revealed,  and  based  their  claim  to  acceptance  upon  their  harmony 
with  the  latter.  We  shall  observe  hereafter  how  he  makes  the 
Gospel  announced  in  Eden  after  the  Fall  already  a  criterion  of 
later  claims.  Thus,  Luther  held  it  to  be  necessary  for  every  new 
revelation  or  new  truth,  though  brought  by  an  angel  from  heaven, 
to  prove  its  legitimacy  by  its  harmony  with  the  divine  Word 
already  given  in  the  ScriptureS;  whereas  in  the  theories  of  the 
Fanatics  and  the  Papacy  the  case  is  just  the  reverse.  But 
although  miraculous  announcements  of  this  character  are  yet 
possible,  they  now  no  longer  lie  in  the  line  of  the  divine  purpose 
and  order,  since  saving  truth  has  now  been  abundantly  revealed 
in  Christ  and  in  che  Scriptures  which  testify  of  Him.  Nor  is 
there  longer  any  need  of  special  external  manifestations  and 
signs  to  confirm  che  truth  thus  revealed  (see  Chap.  HL). 
Particularly  in  the  Reformation  then  in  progress,  the  Word  of 
Scripture,  he  maintained,  and  the  Spirit  working  through  that 
Word,  fnust  be  allowed  of  themselves  to  do  the  whole  work. 
Luther  not  only  never  besought  any  special  revelations,  or  signs, 
in  support  of  his  apprehension  of  Gospel  truth ;  but  he  had,  on 
the  contrary,  dreading  the  perils  of  "  enthusiasm  "  and  the 
deceptions  of  the  devil,  entered  into  a  covenant  with  his  God, 
that  the  latter  should  not  send  to  him  any  visions,  dreams  nor 
angels.  The  miracles  claimed  by  the  Papacy  in  support  of  its 
deceptions  are  partly  fraudulent  and  partly  the  work  of  the  devil." 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  139  sq.     Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  509. 

•^  Erl.   Ed.,  1,  186  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  ix,  63,  69,  302;  iv,  158  sqq. ;  v,  218,  233, 
235  sq.     Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  466. 


22  2  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

The  relation  of  Luther  to  the  traditions  of  the  Church, 
which,  in  their  merely  human  doctrinal  statements  and  their 
practical  ordinances,  claimed  a  place  of  equal  honor  by  the  side 
of  the  divine  Word,  remains  the  same  as  already  noted.^  He 
still,  for  example,  appeals  to  the  warning  of  Deut.  iv.  2  ("  Ye 
shall  not  add  unto  the  Word  which  I  command  you,"  etc.), 
which  he  had  employed  as  a  text  in  his  tract  of  A.  D.  1522,  Von 
Metischenlehre  zu  meiden  (Human  Doctrine  to  be  Avoided). 
In  what  sense,  and  to  what  extent,  Luther  could  still  allow  room 
in  the  Church  for  "  traditions  "  or  human  ordinances,  which 
were  not  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  which  might,  therefore, 
be  observed  or  neglected  at  will,  has  also  been  already  explained 
in  another  connection.  Luther  had  here  to  meet  especially 
the  use  made  by  the  Papists  of  the  declaration  of  Jesus,  John 
xvi.  12:  "I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,"  in  sup- 
port of  their  claim,  that  we  should  believe  and  hold,  along  with 
the  truth  revealed  in  Scripture,  also  whatever  the  Councils  and 
Fathers  have  said  or  appointed.  To  this  Luther  replies,  that 
Christ  certainly  promised  the  apostles  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
guide  them  "  into  all  truth."  How  would  the  notion  of  these 
jugglers,  that  only  after  the  time  of  the  apostles  should  instruc- 
tion be  given  in  the  things  to  be  believed  and  done  by  Christians, 
tally  with  such  a  promise?  Jesus  gives  not  the  slightest  indica- 
tion that  the  "  many  things  "  are  to  be  anything  more  than  what 
He  has  already  taught  them.  He  had  already  abundantly  de- 
clared to  them  all  things  pertaining  to  faith  and  Christian  life, 
as  He  Himself  asserts  in  John  xv.  15.  The  Lord  does  not,  in 
fact,  by  the  "  many  things  "  referred  to,  mean  any  new  doctrine 
or  laws,  but  merely  further  information  as  to  what  was  before  them, 
what  they  should  have  to  suffer  and  what  consolation  they  should 
experience  in  their  afiflictions.  This  it  was  Which  He  meant  to 
say  they  could  not  then  endure  to  hear.  Moreover,  the  Church 
should  by  all  means  make  far  more  use  of  that  which  Christ  had 
^then  already  said  to  His  disciples.  She  ought  to  spread  it 
'abroad  far  and  wide,  as  the  apostles  did,  and,  as  far  as  it  is  pos- 
sible in  our  day,  to  proclaim  it  more  abundantly  among  Christian 
people  and  to  scatter  it  abroad  in  every  way,  in  proportion  to  the 
measure  in  which  each  believer  has  himself  received  the  consoling 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  501. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  223 

revelation.  But  it  dare  not  be  made  in  any  way  different  from 
the  Word  proclaimed  by  Christ  Himself,  but  must  remain  ever 
as  He  gave  it.^ 

Under  this  activity  in  interpreting  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit, 
and  further  expounding,  the  contents  of  the  divine  Word,  Luther 
includes  also  the  gift  of  "  prophesying,"  which  is  represented  in 
such  passages  as  i  Cor.  xiv.  and  Rom.  xii.  7  as  among  the  endow- 
ments of  believers.''^  He  attributes  to  them  also  the  spirit  of  that 
form  of  prophecy  which  deals  with  ihefuiure  of  Christ's  kingdom 
— but  this  only  "  in  so  far  as  we  have  received  it  from  the  apostles 
and  derived  it  from  their  writings."  ^ 

The  Scriptures  are  thus  represented  as  the  norm  of  truth,  the 
Christian's  touch-stone,*  and  it  is  thus  from  them  alone,  as  its 
source,  that  the  truth  can  be  properly  derived.  By  the  side  of 
their  pure  and  full  illumination,  the  feeble  light  which  falls  upon 
us  from  the  general  revelation  of  God  still,  indeed,  retains  its 
significance.  Luther  frequently  points  believers  directly  to  the 
blessings  of  Goci  in  the  world  of  nature,  and  to  the  evidence  of 
His  wisdom  which  they  afford.  But  he  would  have  accepted  as 
valid  no  conclusion,  drawn  from  this  general  source  alone,  which 
could  not  find  confirmation  also  in  the  divine  Word.. 

We  now  proceed  to  trace  the  leading  separate  features  of  the 
doctrine  of  Luther  touching  this  divine  Word  presented  in  the 
Scriptures. 

2.  The  Ground  of  Faith  in  the  Scriptures.     Inner  Witness. 

NOT  AUTHORITY  OF  CHURCH SUPPORT  OF  ANTIQUITY  NOT  DECISIVE 

INNER  WITNESS  OF  SPIRIT RELATION  TO  CHRIST  THE  CRITERION. 

Luther  designates  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  "  the  Book  given  by 
God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  His  Church."  ^  Without  any  discrimina- 
tion, he  presents  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  now  "  the 
Scriptures,"  now"  the  Word  of  God,"  employing  the  two  termsj 
as  perfectly  synonymous. 

But  how  does  he  arrive  at  this  firm  conviction  that  the  Scrip- 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  321 ;  xxvi,  33;  Ixv,  90  sq. ;  xii,  133  sqq.;  xxx,  400; 
I,  68  sqq. 

''Supra,  p.  94.  3  Ef]_  -£6.,  viii,  21,  114;  xxii,  154;  ],  85. 

♦Op.  Ex.,  iii,  219,  Briefe,  vi,  424.  * Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,   100. 


2  24  ■^'HE   THEOLOGY    OF   LUTHER. 

tures  in  general  possess  this  divine  character?  And  what  books — 
and  these  on  what  grounds — does  he  recognize  as  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture and  sharing  the  character  attributed  to  it?  Still  further,  to 
what  results  shall  we  be  led  if  we  inquire  more  particularly  as  to 
his  conception  of  this  divine  character,  of  the  divine  origin  of 
the  volume,  of  the  relation  between  the  spiritual  activity  of  the 
writers  themselves  and  the  divine  Spirit  working  in  them,  and  of 
the  propriety  of  ascribing  such  lofty  character  and  origin  to  all  the 
separate  parts?  It  must  then  also  be  considered,  how  the  divine 
contents  of  the  Scriptures  may  be  appropriated  by  us,  how  they 
are  made  plain  to  our  minds,  and  how  we  are  to  interpret  them. 

It  could  no  longer  occur  to  Luther  as  possible  to  attempt  to 
base  regard  for  tlie  Scriptures  upon  regard  for  the  Church  or  her 
official  utterances.  INIuch  rather  is  the  Church  itself,  in  his  view, 
as  we  long  since  noted,  begotten  of  the  Gospel,  and  subject  to  it. 
"  The  Church  does  not  make  the  Word,  but  is  made  by  it." 
From  this  position,  in  opposition  to  the  papal  conception,  he  is 
not  induced  to  retreat  a  single  step  by  his  desire  to  maintain 
against  the  Fanatics  the  objective  validity  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
was  led  frequently  to  express  his  dissent  from  the  position  of 
Augustine  :  "  I  would  not  believe  the  Gospel  unless  the  authority 
of  the  Church  Catholic  impelled  me."  '  Great  as  is  the  import- 
ance which  he  attaches,  for  the  awakening  of  faith,  to  the  im- 
pression made  by  the  harmonious  testimony  of  the  Church,  yet 
the  only  real  basis  for  faith  in  the  Gospel  is  to  be  found  for  each 
individual  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  that  he 
mwardly  perceii^es  that  it  is  the  truth,  and  would  do  so  though 
an  angel  from  heaven  and  all  the  world  should  preach  against  it.- 

If  we  may  apply  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures  what  Luther  has  said 
of  faith  in  the  truth  which  they  contain,  we  shall  have  his  own 
direct  authority  for  an  appeal  to  the  antiquity  of  the  faith  and 

1  Adv.  Man.  5.  "Evangelic  non  crederem,  nisi  me  ecclesije  catholicse 
commoveret  auctoritas."  [The  explanation  of  this  language  which  gives  to  the 
imperfect  tense  the  sense  of  the  pluperfect,  in  accordance  with  the  "  African 
dialect,"  thus  reducing  the  axiom  to  the  mere  historical  statement,  that  Augus- 
tine M'as  led  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  by  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  is 
rejected  by  the  best  authorities.  He  doubtless  meant  to  assert,  as  Luther  un- 
derstood the  words,  that  the  Scriptures  must  be  accredited  by  the  sanction  of 
the  Church. —  TV.] 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  319,  408.  Jena,  ii,  369  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  4I  sq.  Vol.  I.,  p.  320. 
Jena,  ii,  305,  562  b,  and  especially,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  339  sqq.;  xxx,  394  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  225 

the  approval  of  the  Church ;  as,  for  example,  in  support  of  the 
doctrines  of  infant  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  reference 
to  belief  in  the  Trinity,  he  in  one  passage  declares  that  it  has 
positive  testimonies  and  support  even  of  an  external  character, 
such  as  its  antiquity,  extending  back  to  the  days  of  Adam,  the 
miracles  performed  through  it,  its  secure  position  maintained 
against  all  attacks  and  persecutions,  and,  finally,  the  sure  prophe- 
cies of  the  Christian  religion  touching  its  own  future  experience 
and  that  of  other  forms  of  religion  in  the  world,  which  agree  so 
well,  and  so  unfailingly  accord,  with  the  actual  course  of  history.^ 
Now  we  have  undoubtedly  a  right,  in  view  of  Luther's  known 
views,  to  employ  these  arguments  in  support  of  the  claims  of  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  and  we  thus  secure  an  entire  series  of 
apologetic  deliverances  upon  the  subject.  Luther  often  speaks 
of  the  testimony  which  God  bears  to  Christian  truth  and  to  His 
Word  by  its  wonderful  preservation ;  and  in  such  connections  he 
also  evidently  thinks  of  the  Word  as  given  to  us  in  the  Scriptures. 
He  refers,  further,  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  in  discussing 
the  claims  of  those  books  of  the  Bible  whose  canonical  character 
he  disputed,  and  that  in  such  a  way  as  to  acknowledge  the 
former  as  furnishing  at  least  a  desirable  concomitant  testimony 
in  such  cases.  Thus  he  appeals,  in  the  question  concerning 
2  Maccabees,  from  the  professed  unanimous  testimony  of  the 
Church  to  Jerome ;  and  against  the  canonical  character  of  St. 
James,  to  the  judgment  of  many  authors.  He  cites,  likewise, 
against  the  book  of  Jude  the  fact,  that  the  Ancient  Fathers  had 
"cast  it  out  of  the  chief  Scriptures";  against  the  Apocalypse, 
that  it  was  also,  according  to  Eusebius,  by  many  of  the  Ancient 
Fathers  not  regarded  as  a  work  of  the  apostle;  and  against  the 
three  books  just  named,  together  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
that  they  formerly  "  had  a  different  repute  "  (ein  ander  Ansehen)!'- 
But  the  significance  which  Luther  thus  attaches  to  the  antiquity 
of  the  faith  and  its  universal  acceptance  in  the  Church  does  not, 
as  we  have  already  observed,  in  any  way  conflict  with  his  position, 
that  the  decisive  ground  of  our  confidence  in  it  nevertheless  lies, 
and  must  lie,  elsewhere.  Such  declarations  as  above  cited  in 
regard  to  the  Apocryphal  Books,  or  Antilegomenoi,  by  no  means 

1  Vol.  I.,  pp.  408,  421,  505  sqq.     Vol.  II.,  pp.  53  sq.,  160  sq.,  163. 
"Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  317,  322,  406.     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  158,  159,  154. 
15 


2  26  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

imply  that  the  external  testimony,  the  lack  of  which  would  be  an 
argument  against  the  canonicity  of  any  book,  could  of  itself  be 
accepted  as  sufficient  testimony  in  its  behalf.  Such  a  lack  of 
testimony  is  not  even,  as  we  shall  find,  for  Luther  the  most 
weighty  reason  for  his  denial  of  the  canonicity  of  particular 
books.  He  makes  no  further  use  of  arguments  drawn  from  the 
prophecies  recorded  in  Scripture,  by  whose  historical  fulfilment 
our  faith  in  the  Word  of  God  is  to  be  confirmed. 

There  is  in  the  writings  of  Luther  a  notable  absence  of  any 
apologetic  discussion  of  the  separate  criteria  by  which  the  claim 
of  a  divine  character  for  the  Scriptures  must  be  tested.  It  may 
be  said  in  explanation  of  this,'  that  no  one  in  his  day  denied  the 
divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures,  and  there  was  hence  no  occasion 
to  defend  it.  On  the  other  hand,  this  was  assumed  by  all,  and  the 
Reformer  was  able  to  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  which  all  alike 
acknowledged  as  divine,  for  arguments  against  the  presumptuous 
claims  of  ecclesiastical  tradition  and  the  so-called  inner  light  of  the 
Fanatics.  He  himself^  at  one  time  remarked,  that  there  is  no 
longer  any  need  of  miracles,  since  the  Scriptures  aie  now  accepted 
even  by  the  Papists  and  all  the  sects.^  Had  he  been  brought  into 
contact  with  parties  opposing  the  Scriptures  at  large,  he  would  no 
doubt  have  devoted  much  more  attention  to  formal  argimient  in 
their  behalf.  Yet  it  is  to  be,  of  course,  assumed  that  the  grounds 
upon  which  faith  in  the  divine  Word  must  be  originally  based,  and 
had  in  his  own  case  been  actually  established,  were  clearly  enough 
defined  in  his  own  mind.  This  has  been  manifest  in  our  earlier 
investigations,  and  now  again  appears  with  equal  clearness. 

We  have  just  quoted  the  assertion,  that  everyone  must  "  realize 
within  himself  that  it  is  truth."  It  is,  according  to  Luther,  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  enables  us,  in  the  use  of  the  Scriptures,  to  realize 
this.  What  Luther  asserts,  especially  of  the  origination  of  faith 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  by  means  of  the  Scriptures,  must  be  applied 
also  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures  themselves.  Thus  it  is  said,  in  the 
passage  in  which  he  speaks  of  external  signs  for  the  confirmation 
of  faith :  The  Holy  Spirit  writes  such  (conviction)  upon  the 
hearts  of  men.  The  true  hearer  of  the  divine  Word,  says  he, 
'can  testify  that  it  is  not  the  word  of  a  man,  but  assuredly  the 
(Word  of  God  :  for  God  teaches  him  inwardly ;  he  is  drawn  by 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  509,  2  Erl,  Ed.,  1,  87. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  227 

the  Father.     The  true  divine  faith  beheves  the  Word,  not  for  ^ 
the  sake  of  the  preacher  who  declares  it,  "  but  //  feels  that  what  f 
is  said  is  certainly  true"  {e7-  fiihlet,  dass  so  geioiss  wahr  isi).\ 
"  The  Word,  of  itself,  must  satisfy  the  heart,  must  so  enclose  and 
lay  hold  upon  the  man,  that  he,  though  ensnared  in  it,  feels  how 
true  and  right  it  is."     Thus  the  Samaritans  (John  iv.  42)  were, 
for  example,  compelled  to  believe.     Luther  here  maintains  most 
positively  the  doctrine  of  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  that 
of  divinely-wrought  faith   {fides  divina).     Accordingly,  had  he 
upon  any  occasion  been  called  to  face  antagonists  refusing  to 
acknowledge  the  validity  of  the  Word  of  God,  we  may  be  perfectly 
assured  that  he  would  have  had  no  fear  of  meeting  decisive  force 
in  any  argument  whatsoever  based  upon  external  criteria.     In  the 
light  of  this,  we  must  understand  a  statement  of  the  Tischreden  : 
"  With  any  one  who  denies  that  the  evangelical  Scriptures  are  1 
the  Word  of  God  I  will  not  argue  a  single  word ;  for  we  should  ) 
not  enter  into  dispute  with  any  one  who  rejects  the  first  principles! 
(^prima principia,  perhaps  in  the  sense  of  *  primary  sources  ')."'/ 

But  in  all  the  utterances  of  Luther  concerning  the  "  divine 
faith,"  he  speaks  not  of  faith  in  the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures  in 
themselves  considered,  but  he  includes  also  faith  in  the  truth 
which  they  contain,  and  has,  indeed,  for  the  most  part,  the  latter 
chiefly  in  view.  Thus,  also,  in  the  process  of  development 
experienced  in  his  own  inner  life,  the  ''  divine  faith  "  in  the 
origin  and  character  of  Scripture,  as  contrasted  with  the  human 
recognition  which  he  had  accorded  it  from  his  childhood,  was 
not  awakened  until  the  Spirit  had  made  clear  to  his  mind,  and 
imprinted  upon  his  heart,  the  truth  which  it  contained.  Rather, 
on  the  contrary,  had  the  chief  content  of  Scripture,  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  salvation,  been  already  fully  and  powerfully 
revealed  to  his  spirit  by  the  Spirit  from  on  high  before  he  clearly 
recognized  the  fundamental  difference  between  reverence  for 
Scripture  and  reverence  for  ecclesiastical  ordinances.  Then 
already,  also,  had  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Scriptures  impressed 
itself  upon  his  inner  spiritual  nature  as  a  grand  testimony  to  the 
Law,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  grace  upon  the  other,  with  its 
central  point  in  Christ  Himself,  to  whom  the  Law  was  de- 
signed directly  to  lead  man. 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  340.  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  322,  408,  508.  Eil.  Ed.,  vi,  231; 
xlvii,  352  sq. ;  x,  154  sq.     Tischr.,  Forst.,  i,  28. 


2  28  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

In  fact,  this  attitude  toward  the  Scriptures,  as  such,  and  toward 
their  contents  is  the  characteristic  feature  of  Luther's  method  of 
faith  and  doctrine.  As  he  had,  in  his  own  use  of  the  Scriptures, 
been  drawn  by  the  Father  to  the  Son  and  Saviour,  so,  hkewise,  it 
was  only  after  he  had  come  to  rightly  apprehend  and  know  the 
Son  that  he  learned  to  rely  clearly  and  firmly  upon  the  Scriptures 
themselves,  in  contrast  with  all  human  authority  and  human 
fanaticism.  In  his  own  writings,  however,  we  find  no  closer 
examination  or  analysis  of  the  relation  between  these  two  aspects 
in  the  development  of  faith. 

With  this  general  attitude  toward  the  Scriptures  corresponded, 
further,  his  conception  of  the  proper  position  which  the  separate 
books  of  the  Bible  should,  by  virtue  of  their  contents,  occupy  in 
relation  to  each  other  and  as  constituent  parts  of  one  whole — and 
of  the  significance  which  is  accordingly  to  be  ascribed  to  each. 
Christ  Himself  is  the  central  point,  by  its  relation  to  which  all  else 
is  to  be  estimated.  To  Him — to  the  blessing  announced  already 
to  Abraham,  to  the  Vanquisher  of  the  serpent  announced  already 
to  Adam,  points  the  whole  volume  of  Scripture  in  both  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  with  its  commandments  and  promises,  its  divine 
deeds  and  divine  utterances.  He  is  "  the  point  in  the  circle 
whence  the  whole  circle  has  emanated  and  which  .is  seen  from 
every  part  of  it."  He  is  the  "  Lord  and  King  of  the  Scriptures."  ^ 
Upon  the  relation  of  each  book  to  Him,  therefore,  depends  its 
position  and  significance. 

Inasmuch  as  the  inner  value  of  the  separate  books  to  faith  is 
conditioned  by  this  principle,  it  is  just  upon  this  that  the  chief 
stress  is  laid  in  Luther's  decision  of  the  question  whether  any 
particular  book  has  a  valid  claim  to  canonical  authority.  In  this 
light  we  can  understand  the  declaration  :  "This  is  the  real  touch- 
stone />v  which  all  books  a?-e  to  be  judged,  i.  e.,  when  we  see  whether 
they  make  much  of  Christ  or  not.'^  That  which  does  not  teach 
Christ  is  not  apostolic,  even  though  it  be  taught  by  St.  Peter  or 
St.  Paul ;  on  the  other  hand,  that  which  preaches  Christ  would 
be  apostolic,  even  though  it  were  the  work  of  Judas,  Annas,  etc."'' 
Of  course,  he  does  not  mean  by  this  that  every  book  which  pro- 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  242  sqq. ;  xxxiv,  17  sqq. ;  xlvi,  348.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i, 
388  sq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  157  ;  see  also  ibid.,  1 14  sq. ;  li,  337  (where  Luther  demands 
particularly  testimony  to  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ). 


.    SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  229 

claims  Christ,  and  is  accordingly  apostolic  in  its  contents,  is 
therefore  to  be  placed  upon  an  equality  with  the  writings  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  He  does  not  here  mean  to  deny  the 
supremacy  which  he  ascribes  to  the  Bible  and  its  testimony  of 
Christ  above  all  other  and  merely  human  exhibitions  of  saving 
truth.  This  cannot  be  his  meaning,  even  when  he  in  one  passage 
calls  Melanchthon's  Loci  "  a  little  book  worthy  not  only  of 
immortality,  but  of  any  ecclesiastical  canon."  '  On  the  contrary, 
he  cherishes,  in  regard  to  all  human  books,  even  though  faithfully 
teaching  of  Christ,  and  especially  in  regard  to  his  own,  the  fear 
that  they  may  lead  men  to  neglect  the  reading  of  the  one  Book 
"  which  alone  is  the  fount  of  all  wisdom."  •'  He  valued  books  of 
this  class  only  in  so  far  as  they  were  in  manifest  harmony  with 
the  original  source  of  Christian  truth.  A  lack,  upon  the  other 
hand,  of  such  testimony  in  behalf  of  Christ  as  may  and  should 
still  be  borne  by  Christians  of  the  post-apostolic  period  is  for 
him  an  evidence  against  the  claims  of  any  book  to  apostolicity 
and  canonical  authority.  We  find  this  principle  applied  especially 
in  his  utterances  in  regard  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  James.  We  have 
already  cited  his  opinion  as  to  the  general  spirit  of  this  epistle. 
It  was  in  1522  that  he  asserted:  James  teaches  nothing  about 
Christ,  although  he  mentions  Him  a  number  of  times  :  instead, 
he  urges,  in  opposition  especially  to  St.  Paul,  only  to  the  Law 
and  its  works.  He  calls  it  a  real  epistle  of  straw  in  comparison 
with  John,  Paul  and  Peter.  Nor  was  it  only  in  the  earlier  years 
of  his  life  that  he  ventured  to  express  such  an  opinion.  He 
declared,  in  that  portion  of  the  Church  Postils  which  first 
appeared  in  1543,  that  this  epistle  was  not  composed  by  an 
apostle ;  that  it  is  not  to  be  compared  by  any  means  with  the 
writings  of  the  apostles;  and  that  it  is  not  altogether  in 
harmony  with  pure  doctrine.  In  his  Latin  Conifnentary  upon 
Genesis,  he  even  presumes  to  say  in  reference  to  the  conclusions 
of  the  epistle  touching  the  doctrine  of  justification :  James 
argues  badly — James  wanders  {delirat)  ? 

We  are   therefore,   according   to   Luther,   to  place  this  inner 

'Jena,  iii,  166.     Cf.  Preface  to  Latin  Works,  Jena,  i. ;  Tischr.,  ii,  439. 

"Op.  Ex.,  iv,  328.     Cf.  infra,  p.  251. 

3  Vol.  I.,  pp.  322,  406.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  156  sq.  (A.  D.  1522),  I15  (1522); 
li,  337  (1523)  ;  viii,  267  (Cf.  167  Anm.  and  Erl.  Ed.,  vii.  Preface,  p.  xii). 
Op.  Ex.,  V,  227. 


230  THE  THEOLOGV  OF  LUTHER. 

criticism,  and  that,  too,  as  being  the  most  important,  side  by  side 
with  the  consensus  of  ancient  external  testimony,  which  he  re- 
garded as  insufficient  to  decide  absolutely  the  character  of  separ- 
ate books.  He  took  also  into  account  considerations  other  than 
those  of  dogmatical  character.  The  employment  of  expressions 
found  in  the  Petrine  and  Pauline  Epistles  points,  he  thinks,  to  a 
later  origin.  The  author  of  Jude  epitomized  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter,  and  speaks  also  of  that  apostle  as  would  be  done  by  a 
disciple  living  at  a  later  period.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  speaks  in  the  same  way.' 

This  dogmatical  decision  of  such  questions  was  possible  only 
in  view  of  the  peculiar  way  in  which  his  faith  in  the  Scriptures  and 
their  contents  had  been  developed.  We  have  traced  the  method 
by  which  he  was  led  to  regard  the  central  point  of  their  testi- 
mony, /.  e.,  that  concerning  Christ,  as  certain.  This  at  once 
made  him  equally  certain  which  were  the  '^  genuine  {ixeht- 
schaffenen)  and  noblest  hooks. ^'"^  By  these  the  others  must  be 
judged.  These  principles  are  observed  by  Luther  in  all  his 
utterances  in  regard  to 

3,  TJic  Separate  Parts  of  Scripture. 

OLD    AND    NEW    TESTAMENTS — iSIOSES    AND    THE    LAW — PROPHETS 

PSALMS PROVERBS ECCLESIASTF^ SONG    OF    SOLOMON JOB 

HISTORICAL  BOOKS APOCRYPHA SUPERIORITY  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT 

EPISTLES     OF    PAUL ROMANS GALATIANS EPHESIANS GOSPEL 

OF    JOHN 1.  JOHN 1.  PETER S\TSfOPlTC    GOSPELS ACTS II.   AND 

III.  JOHN II.  PETER HEBREWS JAMES JUDE REVELATION. 

It  is  their  common  relation  to  the  one  central  point  which  con- 
stitutes the  Old  and  New  Testaments  one  book.  Christ  and  His 
apostles  constantly  refer  us  to  the  former  as  the  basis  of  the 
latter ;  whilst  the  entire  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  itself 
point  directly  forward  to  the  New  Testament  revelation  of  salva- 
tion. The  former  is  a  law-book ;  but  it  is  precisely  through  this 
Law  that  the  race  is  to  be  prepared  for  the  Gospel.     Side  by 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  157.  (Luther  thinks  that  by  the  "  James  "  here  spoken  of  is 
meant  the  son  of  Zebedee),  158;  111,272-3;  Ixili,  154. 

»  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  237. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  23  I 

side,  moreover,  with  the  Law,  and  even  from  the  history  of  the 
Fall  onward,  runs  also  the  line  of  evangelical  promises. 

Luther  sees  here,  particularly  in  Moses,  the  herald  and  repre- 
sentative of  the  revelation  of  the  Law,  and  represents  the  teaching 
of  the  Law  and  the  pointing  out  of  sin  as  the  "  peculiar  chief 
doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament."  It  is  the  "  chief  doctrine," 
however,  only  in  that  it  is  there  most  prominently  presented, 
whereas  even  then  already,  and  particularly  in  the  books  of  Moses, 
the  "  much  better  article  "  and  "  first  article  "  is  the  promise. 
And  so  abundantly  and  fully  does  he  find  this  (see,  for  further 
illustration,  under  the  discussion  of  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation) 
developed  already  under  the  old  covenant,  that  he  can  say :  In 
the  Old  Testament  everything  is  already  announced  which  was 
to  come  to  pass  in  Christ  in  the  future  and  to  be  preached  con- 
cerning Him.  There  is  no  word  in  the  New  Testament  which 
does  not  point  back  to  some  place  in  the  Old  Testament  where 
it  is  already  announced.  In  this,  therefore,  consists,  in  his  view, 
the  chief  value  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  The  idea  of  a 
gradual  historical  development  in  the  revelation  of  truth  under 
the  old  covenant,  although  not  altogether  overlooked  in  his 
writings,  falls  far  into  the  background,  whilst  we  note  a  constant 
eft'ort  to  discover  everywhere,  in  as  definite  a  form  as  possible, 
the  great  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel. 

In  connection  with  the  revealed  Word,  with  its  commandments 
and  promises,  we  must  consider  also  the  significance  of  the  divinely 
inspired  histories  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  grace  and  justice 
of  God  are  in  these  set  before  us  as  illustrated  in  particular 
examples.  Especially  do  we  see  in  God's  dealings  with  His 
saints  of  old  the  eternal  purpose  of  salvation,  which  was  at  length 
fully  revealed  in  Christ,  and  which  is  to  be  accomplished  in  us  all. 
We  must  not  expect  to  find  in  Luther  any  such  view  of  the  course 
of  Old  Testament  history,  in  its  entire  scope  and  in  broad  general 
outline,  as  is  rightly  demanded  of  modern  theology.  The  partic- 
ular narratives  are  rather  used  separately  as  illustrations.  The 
value  of  the  latter  lies  in  their  character  as  actual  occurrences, 
and  is  not  to  be  sought  in  any  allegorical  interpretation.^ 

All  the  above  is  applicable,  as  has  been  said,  already  to  the 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  7  sqq.  Briefe,  ii,  650.  (Many  were  at  that  time  disposed 
to  despise  the  Old  Testament.)  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  267  sqq.;  iv,  196;  xxix, 
157  sq. ;  X,  163  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  xxii,  13. 


232  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Books  of  Moses,  and,  indeed,  particularly  to  them.  They  take 
precedence,  by  virtue  of  their  inner  significance,  of  all  the  other 
books  of  the  Bible.  As  Homer  has  been  called  the  father  of  all 
poets,  so  Moses  is,  in  fact,  the  source  of  all  the  sacred  books  and 
the  father  of  all  the  prophets.  He  was  himself  the  greatest  man 
and  prophet  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  yea,  from  the  beginning 
of  time.  God  gave  to  him  His  commandments  and  the  promise 
of  Christ's  coming,  and  all  the  prophets  received  the  knowledge 
of  these  from  him.  Even  the  New  Testament  has  "  flowed  out 
and  distilled  from  Moses,  like  rain  from  the  clouds,  or  dew  from 
heaven"  (Deut.  xxxii.  2-4).^ 

Of  Moses'  proclamation  of  the  Law,  Luther  says,  indeed,  it  has 
only  a  subordinate  authority  {geriugere?i  Befehl) .  Moses  received 
the  Law  from  angels,  and  in  it  God  does  not  Himself  speak. 
When  we  hear  Moses  exhorting  to  good  works,  it  is  as  though  we 
were  listening  to  one  who  was  carrying  out  the  instructions  of  a 
prince :  but  this  is  not  hearing  God  Himself ;  for  when  God 
Himself  speaks  with  men,  they  can  hear  nothing  but  pure  grace, 
mercy  and  everything  that  is  good,  as  He  is  in  His  very  nature 
gracious,  merciful  and  kind.  Thus  God  now  speaks  to  us  as  He 
is  in  His  very  nature,  not  through  a  servant  nor  an  angel,  but 
through  His  own  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here  we  hear  a 
paternal  voice,  which  is  pure,  unfathomable  and  unspeakable 
love  and  grace.  But  this  is  said  with  reference  to  the  character 
of  the  Law  in  so  far  as  God  has  not  asi  yet  revealed  therein  His 
own  real  nature,  and  with  reference  to  the  imparting  of  the  Law 
through  the  human  instrument  in  so  far  as.  such  revelation  par- 
takes also  of  the  same  imperfect  character.  It  is  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  this  representation,  that  the  Law  given  through  Moses 
and  the  angels  and  marked  by  the  failure  to  exhibit  properly  the 
divine  character,  should  nevertheless,  as  Luther  everywhere  else 
teaches,  have  its  origin  in  the  appointment  and  instructions  of 
God  Himself,  who  desired  at  that  time  to  reveal  Himself  only  in 
this  limited  way.  It  is  further  characteristic  of  the  revelation  of 
the  Law  made  by  God  through  Moses,  that  this  Law  can  bring  to 
no  hearer  the  Holy  Spirit,  although  Moses  himself  was  already 
moved  by  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  light  of  the  Spirit  bore  his  testi- 
mony concerning  the  Law  itself.     In  so-  far,  indeed,  as  the  Law 

*Briefe,  ii,  650.     Ed.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  22,j377;  xlvii,  268;  lii,  290. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  233 

was  designed  merely  for  the  Jews,  it  was  accordingly  given 
through  Moses  by  God  Himself.  God  had  thus  ordained  the 
Law  as  a  special  discipline  for  that  nation  and  with  a  special 
regard  to  their  inward  spiritual  state,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
included  in  the  outward  ordinances  also  indications  pointing  for- 
ward to  Christ,  until  He  should  Himself  appear  in  Christ.  Thus 
Luther,  despite  the  fact  already  emphasized,  that  God,  in  the 
sense  indicated,  does  not  Himself  speak  in  the  Law,  yet  says 
again,  without  qualification,  of  the  Decalogue  :  Moses,  the  greatest 
preacher,  received  it  from  God  Himself,  who  thereby  testified 
that  this  is  His  eternal  will.  He  says  further,  of  the  "  forensic 
and  judicial  laws  of  Moses,  which  are  not  binding  upon  us  "  : 
Nevertheless  it  is  a  law  divinely  written  and  promulgated, — but 
again :  I  must  give  attention  to  this,  when  God  says  anything, 
whether  it  is  intended  for  me}  It  will  be  observed  how  this 
conception  of  the  revelation  given  in  the  Law  differs  from  that 
found  in  Luther's  First  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  where  the  Law 
of  Moses  appeared  to  be  contrasted,  as  a  human  law,  with  the 
Law  of  the  Lord.' 

The  exalted  opinion  which  Luther  entertained  of  the  writings 
of  Moses  is  manifest  especially  in  his  Commentary  upon  Genesis. 
No  feature,  even  in  the  historical  narratives,  is  esteemed  of  such 
small  importance,  that  he  does  not  seek  to  trace  in  it  a  divinely- 
designed  significance  for  our  faith  and  life ;  for  we  must  ever 
bear  in  mind,  as  he  so  frequently  reminds  us,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  the  original  author  (  Urheber)  of  this  book.' 

The  great  heralds  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  next  to 
Moses,  are,  according  to  Luther,  the  Prophets.  In  accordance 
with  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  he  designates  the  ancient 
Scriptures  briefly  as  "  Moses  and  the  prophets."  The  latter  base 
their  deliverances  upon  Moses,  both  in  their  enforcement  of  the 
Law  and  in  their  announcements  of  the  Gospel  message.  It 
was  the  design  of  God  that,  in  their  expositions  of  the  Law,  they 
should,  according  to  the  original  divine  purpose,  "  proclaim  it 
in  love."  But  it  is  the  message  of  salvation  which  is  distinctly 
the  principal  thing  in  the  prophets  :   "  They  make  His  people  in 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  357,  271.  Briefe,  ii,  650.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  233  sqq.;  i,  135. 
Op.  Ex,,  vi,  14.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvi,  46;  cf.  supra,  p.  36, 

■■'Vol.  I.,  p.  115.  ^Op.  Ex.,  vii,  313. 


234  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

their  own  day  dependent  upon  the  Christ  to  come."  ^  They  all, 
as  we  ha\e  heard,  had  recourse  to  Moses.  But  although  Moses 
w-as  thus  helpful  to  them,  yet  the  peculiar  character  and  value  of 
their  testimony  lay,  for  Luther,  in  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
put  it  directly  into  their  mouths  :  the  prophet  has  his  under- 
standing of  the  truth,  without  intervening  means,  from  God — has 
no  master  but  God.  As  to  the  relation  of  these  two  aspects  of 
prophecy  to  one  another,  no  further  explanation  is  offered  by 
Luther.  He  in  one  place  discriminates  as  follows  :  The  prophets, 
who  are  so  called  because  they  have  received  the  Word  from  the 
Lord  without  any  intervening  medium,  have,  indeed,  heard  the 
Law ;  but  they  have  received  the  wisdom  of  the  Gospel  by  reve- 
lation from  the  Holy  .Spirit,  just  as  St.  Paul  also  boasts  that  he 
has  received  the  Gospel  from  Christ  Himself  from  heaven. 
Luther  points,  indeed,  expressly  to  those  evangelical  revelations 
which  the  prophets  found  as  well  in  the  writings  of  Moses  and 
David ;  but  it  is  not  their  human  meditation  upon  what  they 
find  thus  already  revealed,  but  an  independent  and  superhuman 
inspiration,  attaching  itself  to  the  earlier  revelations,  which  is  the 
real  source  of  their  new  and  distinctive  testimony  concerning 
Christ.'^  Among  these  prophetic  testimonies,  he  regards  that  of 
Isa.  liii.  as  the  loftiest,  richest  and  most  specific  :  the  entire 
Scriptures,  even  the  New  Testament  (outside  of  the  writings  of 
Paul),  scarcely  contain  any  passage  which  can  equal  this.  It 
was,  beyond  question,  the  specific  prophecies  concerning  Christ, 
and  especially  concerning  His  death,  contained  in  the  prophecy 
of  Daniel,  which  led  the  Refornier  to  designate  that  prophet  as 
the  most  excellent  after  Isaiah.* 

But  the  high  regard  which  Luther  thus  entertained  for  the 
prophets  did  not  restrain  him  from  expressing  adverse  opinions 
concerning  separate  portions  of  their  deliverances.  His  respect 
for  them  was  based  upon  the  testimony  which  they  bear  to  Christ. 
It  is  this,  which  is  the  criterion  by  which  all  Scripture  is  to  be 
estimated,  which  gives  them  their  exalted  place.  But  they  con- 
tain also  prophecies  concerning  other  future  things.  This  latter 
form  of  prophesying,  he  openly  declares  in  the  Chinrh  Pastils,  is 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xlii,  130;  xiv,  130.     Op.  Ex.,  xxii,  12. 

'Ibid.,  XXXV,  134;  xlv,  59. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  441.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  266;  Tischr.,  iv,  404. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  235 

one  of  the  most  insignificant  of  prophetic  gifts,  and  even  comes 
sometimes  from  the  devil.  It  is  a  form  of  prophesying  which  is 
not  needed  in  the  New  Testament,  and  which  makes  faith  no 
better.  The  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  are  therefore  so 
called,  principally  because  they  prophesied  concerning  Christ, 
and,  by  their  expositions  of  the  divine  Word,  guided  the  people 
aright  in  faith,  "  much  rather  than  because  they  sometimes  fore- 
told things  concerning  kings  and  the  course  of  earthly  events, 
which  (kind  of  prophesying)  they  exercised  also  on  their  own 
account,  and  hence  often  failed  in  it :  but  the  former  kind  of  pro- 
phecy they  exercised  daily,  and  never  failed  in  it." 

As  to  the  human,  and  therefore  also  humanly  defective,  intel- 
lectual activity  of  the  prophets,  we  have  an  open  and  candid 
expression,  dating  from  the  closing  period  of  the  Reformer's  life 
(A.  D.  1543).  He  has  recalled  the  divine  injunction  to  search 
the  Scriptures.  In  this  way,  doubtless,  says  he,  the  prophets 
studied  in  Moses,  and  the  later  prophets  in  the  earlier,  and  wrote 
down  in  a  book  the  good  thoughts  then  given  them  by  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  for  they  were  not  such  men  as,  like  the  spirits  and  vain 
rabble  of  modern  times,  to  cast  Moses  aside  and  invent  fabrica- 
tions of  their  own.  He  then  proceeds :  "  But  although  hay, 
wood  and  stubble  were  sometimes  gathered  along  with  the  truth 
by  these  good  and  faithful  teachers  and  students  of  Scripture, 
and  not  always  pure  silver,  gold  and  precious  stones,  yet  the 
foundation,"  etc.  In  this  last  quotation,  Luther  had  in  mind, 
indeed,  all  those  who  have  taught  upon  the  basis  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  but,  in  view  of  its  connection  with  the  discussion  which 
precedes  it,  we  cannot  avoid  the  application  of  it  also,  and  par- 
ticularly, to  the  prophets.' 

In  the  collection  of  the  utterances  of  the  prophets  in  written 
form,  finally,  Luther,  without  hesitancy,  allows  the  agency  of  other 
persons  to  us  unknown — an  agency,  moreover,  which  is  betrayed 
in  the  imperfect  character  of  the  work,  and  especially  in  the 
lack  of  proper  arrangement.  He  notes  this,  for  example,  in  the 
order  of  the  different  sections  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  from  which 
he  infers,  especially  in  the  latter  case,  that  the  separate  portions 
of  their  writings  were  not  arranged  as  we  have  them  by  the 
prophet  himself,  but  "  are  taken  piecemeal  from  his  address  as 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  23;  Ixiii,  279. 


236  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

delivered,  and  recorded  in  the  book."  It  appears  to  him,  Hke- 
wise,  that  the  prophecy  of  Hosea  is  not  written  in  its  full  and 
entire  form,  but  that  certain  sections  and  separate  utterances 
are  taken  from  his  sermons  and  collected  In  a  book.^ 

The  Psalms  constitute  for  I.uther,  in  connection  with  Moses 
and  the  prophets  (in  the  restricted  sense  of  the  term),  by  far  the 
most  important  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  are  to  be 
classed  with  the  prophets  in  view  of  their  prophecies  concerning 
Christ  and  the  congregation  of  believers,  which  Luther,  to  the 
end  of  his  life,  always  delighted  to  trace.  David  he  regards  as 
essentially  a  prophet.  He  expresses  unbounded  astonishment 
at  the  prophetic  illumination  of  the  Psalmist,  as  manifested  par- 
ticularly in  Ps.  ex.,  in  which  he  almost  transcends  the  attainments 
of  the  prophets  themselves.^  Yet  he  now  no  longer,  as  in  his 
First  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  thinks  it  necessary  to  find  every- 
where, if  at  all  possible,  immediate  reference  to  Christ.  He  finds, 
rather,  the  significance  of  the  Psalms  in  general  to  lie  in  the  fact 
that  we  have  recorded  in  them  at  the  same  time  what,  according 
to  the  language  and  circumstances  of  the  sacred  singers,  espe- 
cially of  David,  all  saints  do  and  experience,  and  what  Christ, 
the  chief  of  all  saints,  has  done  and  suffered.  Particularly  does 
he  delight  to  trace  in  the  trials  of  the  pious  a  prefiguring  of  the 
Saviour's  experiences  ;  and  even  when  he  finds  in  the  text  direct 
reference  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  he  carries  out  the  thought 
in  application  also  to  the  circumstances  of  those  who  belong  to 
Christ.  He  finds  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  so  clearly 
foretold  in  the  Psalter,  and  the  condition  and  essential  nature  of 
Christ's  kingdom  and  of  the  whole  Christian  world  so  distinctly 
prefigured,  that  the  Psalter  might  well  be  called  a  little  Bible. 
He  rejoices  that  we  can  in  it,  not  only  observe  the  works  of  the 
saints  of  old,  but  hear  the  very  words  which  they  employed,  and 
still  employ,  in  addressing  God,  and  that  their  hearts  and  the 
inmost  treasures  of  their  souls  are  here  revealed  to  us.  In  view 
of  the  prayers  of  the  saints  which  they  contain,  he  classifies  the 
Psalter  with  the  Lord's  Prayer.  God  has  given  them  both  to  us, 
and  taught  us  to  use  them  in  our  own  petitions.^ 

The  traditional  titles  of  the  Psalms  are  commonly  accepted  by 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  57  ;  Ixi,  74  (1528  and  1532). 

2  Ibid.,  xl,  40.  "  Ibid,,  Ixiii,  27  sqq.,  34. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  237 

Luther  as  correct.  But  he  frequently  seeks  also  to  establish  the 
claims  of  the  reputed  authors  by  independent  arguments,  based 
upon  the  contents  and  language  of  the  compositions  themselves. 
Yet  we  find  him  describe  the  traditional  ascription  of  Psalm  cxxvii. 
to  the  authorship  of  Solomon,  although  the  internal  evidence 
appears  to  him  to  support  the  claim,  merely  as  *'  quite  probable  " 
(^sane  verisimile) } 

Next  to  the  books  already  mentioned,  Luther  placed  the  three 
which  bear  the  name  of  Solomon,  attributing  to  them  a  different 
and  peculiar  significance.  His  view  may  be  thus  briefly  stated  : 
All  three  treat,  in  a  general  way,  of  the  moral  life  which  all  men 
should  lead  before  God  and  before  the  world,  and  not  of  the  chief 
articles,  /.  e.,  Christ  and  justification  through  Him.  But  they  do 
this  in  such  a  way  as  to  refer  our  entire  earthly  life  and  all  our 
earthly  activities  back  to  God,  who  rules  in  all  things,  and  to 
faith  in  Him.  The  first  of  these  books,  indeed,  the  Proverbs, 
deals,  for  the  most  part,  in  its  exhortations,  with  the  life  of  the 
individual  in  its  relations  to  the  world  at  large,  to  its  own  inter- 
ests, and  to  the  affairs  of  the  family,  it  is,  in  so  far,  a  volume 
upon  "  econoniy "  {liber  oeconomicus).  Solomon  seeks  in  it 
especially  to  instruct  and  train  the  young.  To  this  end,  he  con- 
stantly cites  the  commandments  and  works  of  God,  as,  indeed, 
the  commandments  and  works  of  God  are  the  original  source  of 
all  proverbs,  and  the  proverbs  of  every  language  are,  by  virtue  of 
this  basis  in  the  works  of  God  (even  where  the  Word  of  God  is 
unknown),  true  and  reliable.  The  contents  of  Eeelesiastes  he 
thus  describes  :  Just  as  we  are  from  the  Proverbs  to  learn  obedi- 
ence, as  opposed  to  reckless  folly  and  forwardness,  so  from  this 
book  we  are  to  learn  from  life's  trials  and  its  failure  to  satisfy  the 
heart  the  vanity  of  all  human  undertakings,  in  order  that  we  may 
commit  all  things  to  the  disposal  of  divine  wisdom.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  book  is  expressed  in  Matt.  vi.  34.  At  a  later  period, 
Luther  attributes  to  the  book  and  its  exhortations  a  special  refer- 
ence to  the  heads  of  families  and  to  governments ;  and,  finally,  a 
very  specific  reference  to  the  latter  :  It  might  be  called  " politica 
vel  oeconomica  Solomoiiis  "/  it  is  a  political  volume  {liber politicus) , 
not  in  the  sense  of  establishing  laws  for  human  governments, 
which  is  the  province  of  human  reason,  but  as  counseling  the 

1  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  271 ;  XX,  48. 


238  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

rulers  of  the  nations  (and  of  separate  families)  to  fear  God  in 
their  various  stations,  and  to  endure  with  courage  and  fortitude 
the  attendant  burdens  and  anxieties.  Of  Solomon  himself, 
Luther  then  remarks,  in  a  general  way,  that  he,  in  contrast  with 
David,  whose  calling  was  to  testify  of  his  successor,  Christ,  and 
of  justification,  had  been  especially  called  to  be  a  "  doctor 
politicus,"  in  the  sense  above  indicated.  T\v^  Song  of  Solomon 
he  interprets  in  the  same  spirit.  Here,  he  affirms,  Solomon,  as 
in  the  other  books,  celebrates  the  consoling  truth  that  where 
obedience  and  good  government  are  found,  there  God  dwells, 
and  with  His  Word,  the  kiss  of  His  lips,  kisses  and  fondles  His 
beloved  bride.  Solomon  had  immediately  in  view  his  own  king- 
dom, which  he,  by  the  favor  of  God,  governed  in  unbroken  peace. 
The  figure  here  employed  is  like  that  of  Theuerdank,  who  brings 
to  Maximilian  his.  bride,  Ehrenreich.  Luther  does  not  ascribe 
the  composition  of  Ecclesiastes  directly  to  Solomon,  but  suggests 
that  what  the  king  had,  after  long  and  deep  reflection  upon 
human  affairs,  publicly  expressed  in  an  assembly,  or  at  a  feast, 
in  the  presence  of  some  of  his  great  men,  was  noted  down  and 
collected  by  others.  Of  the  Song  of  Solomon  he  remarks,  like- 
wise, that  it  has  the  appearance  of  a  book  of  extracts,  consisting 
of  utterances  caught  by  others  from  the  lips  of  Solomon.' 

The  Book  of  Job  is  to  be  classed,  in  Luther's  judgment,  in 
accordance  with  the  nature  of  its  contents,  with  those  Psalms  in 
which  are  revealed  to  us  the  inner  emotions  of  God's  persecuted 
saints  and  the  dark  ways  of  the  divine  dealing!  with  them.  Job 
he  considers  as  especially  an  example  of  that  severest  form  of 
spiritual  trial,  which  Christ  was  afterwards  to  endure,  namely, 
abandonment  by  God  and  the  realization  of  the  divine  wrath  and 
hell.  He  lays  no  stress,  however,  upon  the  actual  historical 
character  of  the  narrative.  In  the  Church  Postils,  and  that,  too, 
in  the  portion  which  was  added  only  at  a  later  date,  he  says  : 
The  Book  of  Job  presents  us  a  good  illustration  of  what  the  devil 
can  do  against  us,  showing  us,  in  an  excellent  romance  composed 
by  a  poet,  how  Satan  comes  before  God,  etc.  His  opinion,  more 
accurately  expressed,  was,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Tischrcdcn  : 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  xliii,  35-41,  91;  xxii,  209.  Op.  Ex.,  xx,  48:  xxi,  5  sq.,  12 
sq.,  273  sqq.,  278,  284.  Luther,  in  Tischr.,  iv,  400  sq  ,  suggests  that  Ecclesi- 
astes may  have  been  first  constructed  as  one  volume  by  Sirach,  who  may  have 
collected  the  material  from  many  books,  found  perhaps  in  the  Ptolemaic  library. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  239 

"  The  Book  of  Job  is  a  history,  afterwards  cast  into  the  form  of 
a  poem,  recounting  that  which  actually  occurred  in  the  experi- 
ence of  some  person,  but  not  in  the  very  language  in  which  it  is 
here  recorded."  ' 

The  significance  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  naturally  determined  for  Luther  by  his  estimate  of  the  Old 
Testament  historical  narratives  in  general.  To  these  books 
themselves  he  makes  remarkably  few  references.  It  is,  compara- 
tively speaking,  but  quite  infrequently  that  he  looks  to  them  even 
for  illustrations  of  holy  living,  or  of  providential  dealings,  such  as 
he  is  accustomed  to  introduce  in  his  practical  writings.  The  Old 
Testament  characters  to  whom  he  chiefly  refers  are  Abraham  and 
the  other  patriarchs,  especially  Jacob,  Moses  and  David ;  from 
the  period  following  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  principally  David,  and 
the  materials  for  his  life  are  drawn,  to  some  extent,  from  the 
Books  of  Samuel,  but  mainly  from  the  Psalms.  The  Book  of 
Kings  he  describes  in  the  Tischreden  as  the  register  of  the  Jews, 
in  which  the  history  of  their  kings  is  regularly  recorded ;  and  he 
regards  it  as  more  trustworthy  than  the  Chronicles.^  Yet  all  the 
books,  with  their  significant  narratives,  continue  to  retain  for  him 
their  place  in  the  canon.  He  finds  even  in  the  fudges  "  excel- 
lent heroes  and  saviors."  Derogatory  utterances  concerning  the 
apocryphal  books  of  Ezra  do  not  affect  the  canonical  Hebrew 
book  of  that  name.  It  is  only  in  regard  to  Esther  that  he  ex- 
presses a  different  and,  indeed,  very  decided  judgment.  He 
blames  Erasmus  severely  for  placing  the  canonical  books  of  Pro- 
verbs and  the  Song  of  Solomon  on  the  same  level  as  the  two 
(apocr)qDhal)  Books  of  Ezra,  Judith,  Susanna  and  Esther,  adding 
in  regard  to  the  last  named  :  "  which,  although  they  have  it  in 
the  canon,  deserves  beyond  all  the  others  to  be  kept  out  of  the 
canon."  ^  Although  we  find  this  opinion  positively  expressed  in 
only  one  passage  (in  the  treatise,  De  servo  arbitrio),  yet  the 
perfect  silence  as  to  Esther  preserved  in  his  other  writings  fully 
accords  with  it.  His  judgment  was  doubtless  based  upon  the 
contents  of  the  book.  In  one  passage,  he  makes  brief  incidental 
comment  upon  the  books  of  Ezra  (Hebrew)  and  Nehemiah,  as 
follows  :   "  It  is  wonderful  how  he  Estherizes  and  Mordecai-izes."  * 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  25  sqq.;   xxxix,  45  sqq.;  ix,  366.     Tischr.,  iii,  130 ;  iv,  405. 
''Tischr.,  iv,  405.  ^  Jena,  iii,  388.  *  Jena,  iv,  726  b  (A.  D.  1541). 


240  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

The  general  severance  of  the  apocryphal  books  from  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Hebrew  canon  was  based  upon  the  same  principle 
which  had  led  the  Reformer  at  an  earlier  period  to  reject  2 
Maccabees,'  and  upon  his  judgment  as  to  their  internal  character. 
In  his  German  Bible  of  1534,  they  appeared  as  an  appendix  to 
the  Old  Testament,  with  the  explanation  :  "  These  are  books 
which  are  not  considered  equal  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  but  which 
are  yet  good  and  useful  to  read."  That  he  did  not  wish  to  have 
them  left  out  of  the  published  volumes  of  the  Bible,  is  to  be 
attributed  partly  to  the  good  material  which  he  still  recognized 
in  them  ;  yet  we  cannot  but  feel  that  he  was  influenced  here  also 
to  some  extent  by  the  gradation  in  value  and  authority  which  he 
so  distinctly  recognized  even  among  the  canonical  books  them- 
selves. How  far,  we  must  inquire,  was  a  clear  line  of  discrimina- 
tion yet  possible  for  him  between  the  least  valuable  books  of 
Scripture  and  the  best  of  the  Apocrypha  in  regard  to  the  one 
chief  feature  which  must  here  prove  decisive,  /.  <?.,  the  value  and 
significance  of  their  contents? 

Luther  finds  great  differences,  also,  among  the  apocrj'phal  books. 
He  says  that  /  Maccabees  is,  in  style  and  language,  almost  like 
the  other  books  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  would  not  be  un- 
worthy to  be  included  among  them,  since  it  is  very  necessary  and 
useful  in  elucidating  the  prophet  Daniel.  He  expounds  the 
historical  contents  of  the  book  in  the  same  practical,  religious 
way  as  those  of  the  historcal  books  of  the  canon.  Among  the 
doctrinal  books,  his  characterization  of  Sirach  reminds  us  at  once 
of  the  opinion  expressed  as  to  the  writings  of  Solomon,  especially 
the  Proverbs.  It  aims,  he  declares,  to  make  the  citizen,  or  head 
of  the  household.  God-fearing,  pious  and  prudent,  correct  in  his 
conduct  toward  God,  the  divine  Word,  his  parents,  wife,  children, 
property,  neighbors  and  all  men.  In  the  Tischredcn,  indeed,  he 
observes  that  Sirach  is  no  prophet,  and  neither  teaches  nor  knows 
anything  about  Christ.  The  internal  relationship  with  the  books 
of  Solomon,  especially  with  Ecclesiastes,  is  indicated  also  by  the 
supposition  of  the  Tisclu-eden,  that  the  latter  may  also  have  been 
arranged  by  Sirach.^  In  the  Book  of  JVisdom  Luther  finds 
also  much  that  is  good  and  worth  reading,  yet  it  appears  to 
him  to  Judaize  very  strongly,  may  have  been  the  work  of  Philo, 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  317.  ^  Supra,  p.  238  note. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  24 1 

and  has  been  over-estimated  in  the  Romish  Church.  From  a 
comparison  of  the  Book  of  Judith  with  the  historical  books 
of  the  canon,  he  concludes  that  the  former  is  not  historical, 
but  an  allegorical  fiction.  He  regards  it,  nevertheless,  as  an 
excellent  spiritual  composition  written  by  a  holy  and  spiritually- 
minded  man.  The  allegory  he  finds  similar  to  that  of  the  Song 
of  Solomon.  If  it  were  historical,  he  says,  it  might  property  have 
a  place  in  the  Bible.  Very  appreciative,  too,  are  the  comments 
of  Luther  upon  the  sections  of  Esther  and  Daniel  not  found  in 
the  Hebrew  text — strikingly  so,  when  compared  with  his  estimate 
of  the  canonical  Book  of  Esther,  and  yet  not  strangely,  when  we 
consider  the  religious  and  prayerful  spirit  pervading  the  former, 
but  lacking  in  the  latter.  The  narratives  of  Susanna,  Bel  and 
Habakkuk  he  regards  as  further  fictions.  Of  Tobias  the  srane 
may  be  said,  he  declares,  as  of  Judith.  It  is  a  fiction — an  excel- 
lent comedy,  whereas  Judith  is  a  tragedy.  In  the  Tischreden, 
however,  he  agrees  with  Justas  Jonas,  who  has  been  criticising 
Tobias,  that  the  devil  cannot  be  driven  away  so  easily  as  the 
book  represents.  Of  the  ^^ good  Ba^'uch,''  on  the  other  hand, 
Luther  thinks  very  little.  Of  2  Maccabees  he  says,  that  it  is,  on 
the  ground  of  its  contents,  rightly  excluded  from  the  canon. 
He  is  willing  to  "  allow  it  to  go  along  with  the  others,"  only 
because  it  nevertheless  contains  some  good  pieces.  The  so-called 
Third  and  Fourth  Books  of  Ezra  he  did  not  include  at  all  among 
the  books  "  useful  for  reading."  Neither  were  these  books 
acl<nowledged  as  canonical  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  although 
they  have  been  still  circulated  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as 
an  appendix  to  the  Vulgate.  The  Fourth  appears  in  Luther's 
time  to  have  been  held  in  particularly  high  esteem  by  the  Ana- 
baptists on  account  of  its  prophecies.* 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  that,  in  Luther's  view,  Christ 
is  to  be  always  regarded  as  the  central  point,  even  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  and  that  the  latter  already  contain  the  most 
exalted  and  profound  testimonies  concerning  Him.  But  the  New 
Testament  is  superior  to  the  Old,  not  only  upon  the  ground  that 
the  former  announces  Christ  as  having  already  come,  and  ear- 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  104  sq.,    107  sq.,  loi  sq.,  93  sqq.,  98  sqq.,  103.     Tischr., 
iv,  402  sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  ii,  302.    In  Tischr.,  iv,  402  (The  Third  Book  of  Esdras 
I  cast  into  the  Elbe),  Aurifaber  and  Walch  erroneously  print  "Esther"  instead 
of  "Esdras." 
16 


242  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

nestly  offers  Him  to  all  as  the  Saviour ;  but  because,  whilst  the 
Gospel  message  appears  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  single 
promises  and  assurances  of  grace,  in  the  midst  of  the  prevalent 
presentation  of  the  Law,  here  "  grace  and  peace  through  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  in  Christ  "  have  become  the  special  and  peculiar 
doctrine,  although,  indeed,  laws  and  commandments  are  here, 
too,  incidentally  given.  And,  however  deeply  some  special 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  as,  for  example,  Isa.  liii.,  revealed 
the  very  essence  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  only  in  the  New  Testament 
that  the  full,  clear  light  shines  everywhere.  Although  everything 
essential  was  already  contained  in  the  former,  it  is  only  in  the 
latter  that  it  is  brought  out  into  clear  light.  The  Old  Testament 
is,  as  it  were,  a  last  will  and  testament  of  Christ,  which  can  only 
now  be  properly  read,  and  which  is  now  to  be  everywhere  made 
known.  From  the  New  Testament  we  must  look  back  to  those 
passages  in  the  Old  upon  which  the  discourses  of  the  former  are 
based,  and  to  which  they  refer.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  only 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  manifested  Christ  that  we  are  to 
interpret  Moses  and  the  prophets,  for  whose  utterances  He  is  as 
the  centre  to  the  circle.' 

Moreover,  everything  which  the  apostles  have  written  consti- 
tutes but  One  Gospel.  We  cannot,  with  strict  propriety,  speak  of 
"  four  gospels."  The  term  "  Gospel  "  expresses  for  Luther  the 
conception,  further,  of  a  living,  public  proclamation,  sounding 
abroad  through  the  whole  world — not  so  much  a  word  recorded 
in  books  and  printed  letters,  but  rather  a  spoken  word.  There- 
fore Christ  Himself  did  not  write.  That  it  should  have  been 
found  necessary  to  write  books  manifests,  in  itself,  a  great  devia- 
tion from  the  original  method,  and  an  infirmity  of  spirit.  It  is 
evident  that  a  confinement  in  the  Letter  does  not,  to  the  mind 
of  Luther,  accord  with  the  free  spiritual  character  and  agency  of 
the  essentially  living  and  actively-operating  Word  of  salvation. 
That  the  Old  Testament  announcement  of  Christ  was  committed 
to  writing  was  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact,  that  it  "  only 
pointed  to  the  future  Christ,"  and  was  to  be  compared  to  a  last 
will  and  testament  not  yet  completed.  Now  that  Christ  has 
come.  He  is  to  be  vividly  and  publicly  preached.  Yet  it  was 
necessary,  he  adds,  that  books  should  be  written ;  for,  as  false 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  9;  x,  164;  xlvi,  348. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  243 

teachers  arose,  it  was  found  needful  at  last  to  resort  to  the  pre- 
paration of  written  testimonies,  in  order  to  furnish  pasture  for  the 
sheep  of  the  flock,  in  which  they  ftiight  themselves  find  nourish- 
ment, even  though  their  shepherds  should  become  wolves.  Thus 
Paul  wrote  down  what  he  had  previously,  and  no  doubt  in  much 
fuller  form,  orally  taught.  Thus  the  apostles  in  general  sought 
to  preserve  the  New  Testament  securely  and  certainly,  as  in  a 
sacred  ark,' 

Among  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  we  find  Luther  again 
discriminating,  in  view  of  their  respective  relations  to  the  heart 
and  centre  of  the  Gospel.  The  precedence  was,  in  harmony  with 
his  conception  of  saving  truth,  and  with  the  course  of  his  own 
spiritual  development  as  well,  accorded  to  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul.  They  not  only  testify  directly  of  Christ,  but  they  carry 
the  special  message,  that  it  is  only  in  Him  that  salvation  can  be 
secured  through  faith.  He  prefers  particularly  the  Epistles  to  the 
Romans,  Galatians  and  Ephesians — more  specifically,  the  two 
first  named,  and,  of  these  two,  that  to  the  Romans.  From 
Romans  and  Galatians  we  should  decide  all  questions,  and  in 
their  light  interpret  dark  passages  in  other  portions  of  Scripture. 
The  real  principal  part  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  very  purest 
(exhibition  of  the)  Gospel,  is  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  He 
praises,  likewise,  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  with  which  he  would 
assign  a  place  of  equal  dignity  to  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John 
on  account  of  its  exalted  testimony  concerning  the  Son  of  God, 
concerning  God  the  Father,  to  whom  it  attributes  all  things  and 
with  whom  it  represents  the  Son  as  having  all  things  in  commonj 
and  concerning  man's  own  inability  and  the  mercy  of  God  mani- 
fested in  Christ.  Among  the  four  Gospels,  he  regards  it  as  the 
one  tender  and  real  chief  Gospel.  Special  prominence  is  given, 
further,  together  with  the  writings  of  Paul  and  John,  to  the  First 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter.  He  assigns  a  lower  position  to  the  Gos- 
pels of  Matthew,  Mark  and  Luke,  inasmuch  as  they  do  not  lay 
as  much  stress  as  the  books  above  named  upon  the  lofty  articles 
concerning  the  grace  which  we  possess  in  Christ  and  concerning 
faith  in  Him,  but  treat  more  of  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  of  the 
works  and  fruits  of  faith.  St  John  remains  thus,  for  Luther,  the 
foremost  and  chief  of    the   Evangelists.     Yet    the    significance 

>  Eri.  Ed.,  li,  326;  x,  16,  366  sq.;  Hi,  29;  xxii,  183. 


244  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LLTHER. 

which  attaches  to  the  others  Hkewise,  with  the  emphasis  laid  by 
them  upon  works,  is  also  recognized — more  fully  in  the  later 
than  in  the  earlier  writings  of  the  Reformer.  This  phase  of  the 
truth  he  admits  must  also  not  be  overlooked,  and  in  this  he 
acknowledges  that  the  other  Evangelists  excel  John — only  we 
must  bear  in  mind,  that  the  works  must  always  be  attributed  to 
faith  and  proceed  from  it.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  also 
held  in  peculiarly  high  esteem  by  Luther,  on  account  of  the  testi- 
mony which  it  bears  to  the  chief  article  of  Christian  doctrine,  that 
of  justification  by  faith.  He  regards  it  as  the  constant  aim  of 
this  book  to  teach  that  the  Holy  Spirit  comes,  not  from  the  Law, 
but  from  the  hearing  of  the  Gospel. ' 

The  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  do  not  belong  to  the 
so-called  "  Homologoumenoi^'  of  Eusebius,  upon  whose  repre- 
sentations as  to  the  testimony  of  the  early  ages  in  behalf  of  the 
respective  books  Luther  has  relied.  Nevertheless,  he  entertams 
no  doubts  concerning  the  three  so-called  Antikgomenoi,  i  John, 
2  John  and  2  Peter.  In  the  German  Bible  he  allowed  them  to 
stand  next  to  the  first  Epistles  of  John  and  Peter  respectively, 
and  thus  to  precede  the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews,  those  of  James 
and  Jude,  and  the  Revelation.  The  four  books  last  named  he 
introduces,  in  his  Preface  of  the  Year  1322,  with  the  words  : 
"  Thus  far  we  have  had  the  proper  and  certain  chief  books  of  the 
New  Testament ;  but  the  four  books  which  follow  had  in  ancient 
times  a  different  repute."  He  does  not  therefore  at  all  mean 
to  indicate  that  he  does  not  count  i  John,  2  John  and  2  Peter 
as  properly  belonging  among  the  principal  books,  or  that  he 
allows  them  to  retain  their  place  only  because  he  does  not  wish 
to  sever  them  from  the  earlier  epistles  of  the  same  apostles.  He 
published  a  commentary,  also,  upon  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter 
without  even  making  mention  of  the  uncertaintv  of  the  ancient 
witnesses  concerning  the  authorship.  The  explanation  of  his 
treatment  of  these  books  is  doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  lack  of  external  testimony  in  their  behalf  appeared  to  him  as 
of  little  moment  when  compared  with  the  internal  worth  which 
he  ascribed  to  them ;  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  he  found  in  them 
no  such  indications  of  later  and  non-apostolic  authorship  as  in 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  115.  Briefe,  vi,  424.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  119,  153.  Briefe, 
i,  224.  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  326  sq,;  xliii,  Si  :  xlvii,  372;  Ixiii,  1 16.  Comm.  ad. 
Gal.,  i,  296  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  245 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  that  of  Jude.  In  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  yohti  he  sees  illustrations  of  love  and  faith,  and 
recognizes  also  in  them,  as  in  the  First  Epistle,  a  truly  apostolic 
spirit.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  he  does  not,  indeed,  acknowl- 
edge, as  he  does  the  first,  as  among  the  noblest  books,  and  refers 
to  it  much  less  frequently  than  to  the  latter.  It  appears  to  him, 
however,  to  display  the  same  strictly  evangelical  purpose  which 
he  had  always  had  in  view  in  his  own  teaching,  /.  e.,  it  guards 
against  the  two  opposite  errors — urging  that  the  power  to  make 
men  pious  and  acceptable  to  God,  which  belongs  only  to  faith,  be 
not  attributed  to  works,  and  that  no  one  imagine  that  faith  can 
exist  without  good  works.  In  commenting,  indeed,  upon  one 
passage  of  the  epistle  (iii.  15,  16),  he  remarks  that,  inasmuch 
as  this  indicates  that  the  letter  was  written  long  after  those  of 
Paul,  it  might  be  inferred  that  its  author  was  not  St.  Peter ;  but 
he  himself  does  not  draw  such  inference.  He  even  says  in  regard 
to  a  doctrinal  statement  of  the  epistle,  namely,  that  the  Lord 
desires  not  that  any  should  perish,  etc.  (iii.  9),  that  it  might 
awaken  suspicion  as  to  the  apostolic  origin  of  the  book  ;  and  he 
himself  thinks  that  Peter  has  here  not  quite  maintained  the 
standard  of  the  apostolic  spirit.  His  objection  (expressed  in 
1524)  was  based  upon  his  doctrine,  developed  especially  in  his 
controversy  with  Erasmus,  concerning  the  grace  of  God  and  His 
gracious  decree,  against  which  the  Papists,  referring  to  this  pass- 
age and  I  Tim.  ii.  4,  maintained,  that  our  obedience  to  the  will 
of  God  does  not,  after  all,  depend  upon  God,  but  upon  us.' 
Nevertheless,  he  does  not  on  this  account  discredit  the  apostolic 
origin  of  the  epistle,  but  thinks  that  the  apostle  in  this  passage, 
in  which  he  is  writing  not  of  faith  but  of  love,  has,  as  is  the 
nature  of  love,  stooped  to  the  level  of  his  neighbor,  the  future 
reader  of  his  epistle.  That  Luther  does  not  further  examine  the 
question  as  to  the  authorship  of  these  three  epistles,  /.  e.,  their 
human  composers,  is  but  a  further  and  characteristic  evidence  of 
the  nature  of  his  critical  principles  as  applied  to  the  canon.^ 

The  four  remaining  books,  as  we  have  seen  from  the  preface 
above  cited,  are  not  regarded  by  Luther  as  belonging  properly  to 
the  scriptural  canon.     So  strongly  did  he  feel  it  to  be  his  duty 

'Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  11,317. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xliii,  154;  Hi,  213  sqq.  ;  li,  327  ;  xliii,  115,  152;  Iii,  271, 


246  THE    THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

to  call  the  attention  of  all  readers  of  the  Scriptures  to  the  differ- 
ence between  the  two  classes  of  books,  that  he  even  altered  in 
the  German  Bible  the  outward  order  of  the  books  which  had 
become  universally  prevalent  in  the  Church,  placing  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  and  that  of  James  further  back.  We  have 
already  noticed  how  candidly  he  expressed,  even  in  sermons, 
his  opinion  of  the  Epistle  of  James.  His  opinion  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  appears  at  first  to 
have  been  not  definitely  settled.  Although  he,  in  a  Christmas 
Servion  in  the  Church  Postils,  already  pronounces  as  probably 
correct  the  view  of  a  non-apostolic  origin  of  this  book,  and  men- 
tions that  some  ascribe  it  to  Luke  and  some  to  ApoUos,  yet,  in 
another  of  the  Christmas  SertnonSj  and  in  a  publication  of  A.  D. 
1523,  he  cites  the  epistle  without  further  comment  as  a  letter  of 
Paul.  But  in  the  course  of  time  he  becomes,  not  more  reserved, 
but  more  positive,  in  his  opinion.  He  says  of  Apollos,  in  a  Ser- 
mon of  A.  D.  1537 :  "The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  probably 
his"  \  and,  still  later :  "  The  author  of  the  epistle,  whoever  it  is, 
whether  Paul  or,  as  /  t]ii77k,  Apollos."  In  quoting  from  the 
epistle,  he  commonly  speaks  merely  of  "  the  author  of  the  epistle", 
or  of  the  "  master  of  this  Scripture  "  {Meister  der  Schrift)} 

But  while  he  thus,  in  forming  his  estimate  of  the  four  books  in 
question,  takes  into  view,  along  with  the  testimony  of  ancient  writers 
as  to  their  authorship,  also  both  the  external  historical  indications- 
which  they  contain  and  the  internal  character  of  their  teachings, 
his  opinion  upon  the  last  named  point,  which  is  for  him  the  one 
of  greatest  moment,  is  by  no  means  in  every  instance  the  same. 

In  this  respect,  he  esteemed  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  much 
more  highly  than  the  other  three.  In  his  Preface  of  A.  D.  1522, 
indeed,  he  instances  <igainst  it  the  "  hard  knot,"  that  in  chapters 
vi.  and  x.  repentance  is  absolutely  denied  for  sins  committed 
after  baptism,  as  also  the  declaration  in  xi.  17  concerning  Esau. 
These  sound  to  him  as  contradictions  of  the  Evangelists  and  Paul ; 
and  he  doubts  whether  the  language  will  bear  any  other  interpre- 
tation than  that  which  is  apparent.  Yet,  despite  this,  he  recog- 
nizes in  the  book  the  very  model  of  an  excellent  epistle,  which 
treats  in  a  masterful  way  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  and  thus  of 
the  chief  article  of  our  faith.     At  a  later  day,  he  not  only  con- 

'Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  181 :  x,  174;  xxii,  133;  xviii,  38.  Op.  Ex.,  xi  130; 
J.  335;   iii.  298.     Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  177. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  247 

tinues  to  extol  the  epistle  most  highly  on  this  account ;  "but  he 
then  finds  the  passages  alluded  to,  if  the  text  be  but  rightly 
understood,  in  harmony  with  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  salvation.^ 
From  that  time  forward,  accordingly,  his  only  reasons  for  assign- 
ing a  lower  position  to  this  epistle  than  to  the  other  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were,  that  it  had  in  earlier  times  "  a  different 
repute  "  in  a  portion  of  the  Church,  and  that  it  would  seem, 
from  internal  evidences,  such  as  chap,  ii.,  v.  3,  to  have  been  com- 
posed by  a  later  disciple  of  the  apostle. 

Luther  never  changed,  however,  his  unfavorable  opinion  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Epistle  of  James,  touching  the  doctrine  of  justi- 
fication. According  to  the  Tischreden,  he  binds  himself  to  put 
his  cap  upon  the  head  of  any  man  who  can  harmonize  the  doc- 
trine of  James  on  this  subject  with  that  of  Paul,  and  to  take  the 
place  of  a  fool  in  comparison.^  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  even  in 
the  Preface  of  A.  D.  1322^  he  regards  the  epistle  as.  worthy  of 
praise,  because  it  sets  up  no  doctrine  of  men,  but  lays  great 
stress  on  the  commandment  of  God.  But,  for  himself,  he  cannot 
and  will  not — as  he  declares,  though  in  a  somewhat  milder  tone, 
even  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Preface — place  it  among  the  real 
chief  books  of  the  Bible.  He  will  not,  however,  hinder  others 
from  placing  it  wherever  they  wish,  since  it  contains  many  good 
utterances  upon  other  points.  He  attributes  the  contradiction  of 
Paul's  teaching  to  an  intellectual  inferiority  upon  the  part  of  the 
author,  who  wished  to  caution  those  who  rely  upon  faith  without 
works,  but,  in  making  the  attempt,  did  not  rise  to  the  requirement 
of  the  task. 

In  regard  to  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  Luther  declared  in  1521, 
that  it  had  formerly  appeared  to  him  unprofitable,  but  that  he 
had  come  to  see  that,  taken  from  the  Epistle  of  Peter,  it  was 
intended  to  bear  witness  against  the  Pope  (the  antichristian 
intruders  who  were  to  appear) .  In  the  Preface  of  A.  D.  1522, 
he  argues,  further,  in  the  way  already  indicated,^  that  it  does 
not  come  from  an  apostle.  He  speaks  in  a  similar  way  also 
in  his  exposition  of  the  book  in  1524.  In  the  CJmrch  Postils, 
he  says  of  it  and  the  Epistle  of  James,  that  they  are  "  not 
writings  of  the  apostles."     But  nevertheless — evidently  just  on 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xl,  139;  xliv,  126.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  287.     Op.  Ex.,  vii,  70. 
«  Tischr.,  iv,  399.  s  Supra,  p.  230. 


248  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

account  of  the  testimony  which  he  was  able  to  deduce  from  them 
against  the  prevalent  abuses  under  the  Papacy — he  considered 
them  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  him  in  specially  "  preach- 
ing and  expounding  "  them  together  with  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter.  He  does  not,  in  these  expositions,  adopt  as  his  own  the 
suspicions  in  regard  to  verses  9,  14  and  15,  which  led  some  of 
the  early  Fathers  to  reject  the  book.  In  regard  to  verse  9,  he 
expresses  no  opinion.  To  the  argument  against  verses  14  and  15, 
that  they  contain  a  statement  in  regard  to  Enoch  which  occurs 
nowhere  else  in  the  Scriptures,  he  replies  that  neither  do  the 
names  of  Jannes  and  Jambres,  found  in  2  Tim.  iii.  8,  occur  any- 
where else  in  the  Scriptures.  He  says  :  "  Be  it  as  it  may,  we  let 
the  matter  go."  At  all  events,  God  has  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world  permitted  some  men  to  proclaim  His  Word,  and  Father 
Enoch  doubtless  labored  in  that  way.  He  afterwards,  in  the 
Commentary  upon  Genesis,  says  more  definitely  of  Jude,  that  he 
does  not  know  whence  he  derived  this  saying;  probably  it  had 
been  preserved  in  the  memory  of  the  race,  or  some  traditions  of 
the  patriarchs  may  have  been  recorded.  He  here  names  the 
apostle  Jude  as  the  author,  without  further  comment.  We  may 
safely  see  in  this  favorable  attitude  of  Luther  toward  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  another  illustration  of  the  preponderating  importance 
which  he  is  accustomed  to  attach,  in  his  criticism  of  the  books  of 
the  Bible,  to  the  value  of  their  contents.' 

Luther  expresses,  in  A.  D.  1522,  a  very  unfavorable  opinion  of 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  basing  it,  again,  upon  the  internal 
character  of  the  book,  with  reference,  however,  also  to  the  fact 
that  many  of  the  Fathers  likewise  rejected  it.  We  have  already 
seen  that  he  regarded  the  New  Testament  as  essentially  a  free 
and  open  proclamation  of  Christ.  In  full  harmony  with  this,  we 
now  find  his  opinion  of  the  Apocalypse.  It  fits,  he  declares,  the 
apostolic  office,  to  speak  and  prophesy  of  Christ  in  clear,  plain 
language,  as  Peter,  Paul  and  Christ  Himself  have  done  in  the 
Gospel.  This  book,  on  the  contrary — in  contrast  with  the 
manner  of  the  prophets  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  New — deals  throughout  so  entirely  in  visions 
and  pictures,  that  he  is  almost  compelled  to  class  it  with  the 

'  Jena,  ii,  390  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  158;  Iii,  272  sq.;  -x,  166;  Iii,  277,  281. 
Op.  Ex.,  ii,  96. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  249 

Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  and  cannot  discover  any  evidence  that  it 
was  indited  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Besides,  it  is  enough  for  him, 
that  Christ  is  not  taught  nor  recognized  in  the  book.  He  is,  there- 
fore, unable  to  consider  it  apostolic  or  prophetic.  Yet  he  does 
not  desire  to  bind  others  to  his  opinion.  He  merely  expresses 
his  own  feelings  in  the  matter.  His  mind  cannot  adapt  itself  to 
this  book.  In  the  same  year,  he  appeals,  in  support  of  the 
priesthood  of  believers,  to  Rev.  xx.  6,  with  the  remark  that  the 
book  is,  indeed,  "  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  be  available  in 
controversy  " — "  in  the  estimation  of  the  ancients  not  of  full 
authority  in  controversy."  In  a  letter  of  A.  D.  1523,  he  calls  it 
"  an  obscure  and  uncertain  book."  The  sermon  of  the  Church 
Postils  upon  the  Second  Sunday  in  Epiphany  contains,  under 
Rom.  xii.  6,  the  remark  (with  which  may  be  compared  the 
expression  above  cited  [p.  235]  concerning  the  utterances  of  the 
Old  Testament  prophets)  :  Paul  does  not  here  place  a  high  esti- 
mate upon  the  foretelling  of  future  events,  such  as  we  find  in  the 
prophecies  of  Lichtenberger,  the  Abbot  Joachim,  and  almost  the 
whole  of  the  Apocalypse.  How  derogatory  to  the  character  of 
the  Apocalypse  is  this  association  may  be  inferred  especially  from 
the  Reformer's  opinion  of  Lichtenberger  elsewhere  expressed.' 

But,  despite  the  low  estimate  placed  upon  the  book  in  gen- 
eral, Luther  had,  in  his  answer  to  Catharinus  ■-'  maintained  the 
fulfilment  of  some  of  its  most  significant  symbolical  repre- 
sentations in  the  papal  theology.  At  a  later  period,  he  labored 
more  diligently  to  understand  the  prophecies  of  the  volume, 
and,  despite  all  the  uncertainty  attaching  to  them,  to  turn 
them  to  good  account.  He  speaks  with  cordial  appreciation  of 
its  portraiture  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  at  large,  which,  despite 
all  the  antagonism  and  assaults  of  hell,  is  to  remain  in  possession 
of  the  divine  promise.  The  most  bea'utifubof  its  figures  seems 
to  him  to  be  that  of  the  virgin  and  the  dragon,  which  he  em- 
bodied in  his  hymn:  ^^  Sie  ist  niir  licb,  die  werthe  Magd''  He 
now  no  longer  compares  the  Apocalypse  with  the  prophecies  of  a 
Lichtenberger,  but  with  those  uttered  by  the  holy  apostles,  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  after  the  ascension  of  Christ ; 
and  the  passage  above  cited  is  left  out  of  the  later  edition  of  the 
Church  Postils.     Still,   Revelations  always   remained  for   him  a 

^Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  250  •sqq.,  257.  ^  Vol.  I.,  p.  207. 


250  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

book  of  "  dark  words  and  figures  " — a  "  very  obscure  book  " 
{liber  obscurior) .  Nor  did  he  fail  to  observe  how  attractive  it, 
together  with  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra,  proved  to  be  to  the 
fanatical  sects.  The  attitude  which  he  now  assumed  toward  the 
book  is  clearly  revealed  in  the  Preface  which  he  substitutes  for 
that  of  A.  D.  1522.  He  acknowledges,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
holy  men  do  sometimes  receive  from  the  Holy  Spirit  prophetic 
revelations  in  bare  pictures  and  figures,  without  any  word  or 
explanation,  as  Peter,  quoting  from  Joel,  speaks  in  Acts  ii.  t;  of 
visions  and  dreams.  But  he  maintains,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
without  reliable  interpretation  they  cannot  prove  beneficial  or 
fruitful.  As,  therefore,  no  certain  interpretation  has  yet  been 
given  of  the  Apocalypse,  he  has  hitherto  passed  it  by,  especially 
as  some  of  the  Fathers  did  not  consider  it  as  apostolic  in  origin. 
For  himself,  he  can  do  no  more  than  let  the  question  rest  in  un- 
certainty. Nevertheless,  he  not  only  does  not  desire  to  hinder 
any  one  else  from  accepting  it  as  genuine,  but  he  himself  still 
seeks  to  find  explanations  of  its  prophecies  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  in  the  ancient  heresies,  in  the  Roman  Empire,  the 
Romish  Church,  etc.  Thus,  says  he,  we  can  still  make  use  of 
the  book — for  consolation  and  warning.  Those  who  are  scandal- 
ized at  the  abuses  in  the  Christian  world  ought  to  read  this  book 
and  learn  to  look  upon  such  things  with  other  eyes  than  those  of 
reason.  It  will  teach  us  to  hold  firmly  the  article  of  the  Creed  : 
"  I  believe  in  a  holy  Christian  Church."  To  this  extent,  Luther's 
opinion  of  the  book  was  changed — but  not  the  general  principles 
of  his  biblical  criticism."    \ 

4.  Inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Writers, 

GIBLE    GIVEN    BY    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT PRIMARY    INSPIRATION    OF    ORAL 

DELIVER.\NCES HUMAN     AGENCY DISPARAGEMENT     OF     PORTIONS 

OF    SACRED    BOOKS. 

We  have,  in  the  above,  gleaned  the  most  important  utterances 
of  Luther  touching  the  Scriptures  at  large  and  touching  separate 
portions  of  the  volume.     But  at  what  conclusion  shall  vve  arrive, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  169  sq. ;  viii,  36.  Jena,  ii,  468.  Briefe,  ii,  415.  Erl.  Ed., 
viii,  22.  Op.  Ex.,  XX,  152,  156  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ivi,  359  (cf.  Luther's  Geist- 
liche  Lieder  von  Ph.  Wackernagel,  p.  164).  ErL  Ed.,  1,  85.  Op.  Ex.,  ii, 
302,     Erl.  Ed.,  ixiii,  158  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  25  I 

if  it  be  now  inquired,  in  view  of  all  that  has  been  said  :  In  what 
sense  can  the  Bible  be  called  "  a  book  given  to  the  Church  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,^''  or,  What  does  Luther  understand  precisely 
when  speaking  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  In  reply  to 
these  questions,  we  are  not  able  to  produce  any  more  precise 
explanations  or  definitions  of  Luther  as  to  the  nature  and  form 
OF  inspiration.  Very  important  materials,  however,  for  the  con- 
struction of  a  doctrine  of  inspiration  in  accordance  with  his) 
peculiar  view  of  the  subject  have  been  furnished  by  the  foregoing 
review. 

Only  upon  the  view  of  such  an  inspiration  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  was  peculiar  to  the  Scriptures  alone,  in  contradistinction  from 
the  productions  of  even  the  most  pious  and  holy  Christians  of 
post-apostolic  ages,  could  rest  the  lofty  estimate  which  Luther 
entertained  of  the  Bible  as  compared  with  the  best  of  other  books 
— only  upon  the  conviction  that  its  contents  were  of  such  a  char- 
acter as  to  make  it,  for  all  time,  the  One  source  of  all  truth. ^  At 
this  point,  our  attention  is  again  fixed,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  concerned,  especially  upon  Moses,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms.  Luther  confessed  at  the  close  of  his  life  that  he  was 
still  only  an  A  B  C  scholar  in  the  books  of  Moses,  which  no  one 
had  yet  thoroughly  learned  to  understand,  and  whose  contents 
were  deeper  than  any  abyss ;  and  the  writings  of  Moses  have  this 
character,  because  they  are  "  a  writing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  and 
because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  "  author  of  the  book  "  {/ibri alitor). 
The  prophets,  Luther  asserts,  are  "  also  far  superior  to  us  "  in 
their  preaching  of  Christ,  and  they  have  received  their  message, 
as  we  have  seen  above,  immediately  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Psalter  not  only  contains  testimonies  to  Christ  of  which  the 
same  may  be  said  ;  but  for  every  prayer  which  a  devout  heart 
can  wish  to  utter  there  may  here  be  found  words  so  "  exact  and 
precious  that  all  men  combined  could  not  have  invented  such 
appropriate  measure,  language  or  thought."  Compared  with  it 
and  the  Lord's  Prayer,  our  own  poor  attempts  at  prayer  must 
seem  cold,  heartless  and  weak.  For  an  explanation  of  this  char- 
acteristic of  the  Psalms,  we  must  look  again  to  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  the  Psalmists.  To  the  apostles,  finally, 
Christ  Himself  gave  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  should 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  228. 


252  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

teach  them  all  things.  They  drew,  as  Luther  often  said,  from 
the  fountain  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  even  that  which  was 
derived  from  this  source  for  their  testimony  to  Christ  they 
recognized  only  through  the  revealing  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  himself,  he  declares,  could,  with  the  help  of  the  same  Spirit, 
make  as  good  a  New  Testament  out  of  Moses,  the  Psalter  and 
Isaiah,  as  that  which  the  apostles  have  written.  But  just  because 
we  do  not  enjoy  such  full  and  powerful  aid  from  the  Holy  Spirit, 
we  must  lea^n  from  them,  and  drink  out  of  their  well.  The 
Scriptures  at  large  Luther  calls  directly  "  the  Spirit's  own  writing" 
— in  contrast  with  writings  of  the  Fathers,  from  which,  upon  the 
theory  of  the  Papists,  the  meaning  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Scripture 
must  be  learned.' 

But  we  dare  not  interpret  such  expressions  of  Luther  as  indi- 
cating that  it  was  at  all  his  idea,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
result  of  a  uniform  divine  inspiration,  without  the  intervention  of 
the  human  individuality  and  intellectual  activity  of  their  authors, 
or  without  any  distinction  between  the  various  and  diverse  por- 
tions of  the  Bible. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  first  of  all,  that, in  the  view  of  Luther,  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  production  of  the  written  Word 
was  in  nowise  more  complete  than  that  which  He  exercised  in 
the  Oral  Deliverances  of  His  human  instruments.  In  the  case 
of  the  New  Testament  heralds  of  the  Gospel,  we  would  be  com- 
pelled, as  he  teaches,  to  see  in  their  witnessing  through  the  written 
Word  and  Letter  a  form  of  activity  beneath  the  dignity  of  the 
Spirit,  if  the  special  need  of  the  Church  had  not  required  it.'-'  In 
the  case  of  the  prophets,  Luther  ascribes  the  agency  of  the  Spirit, 
in  the  first  instance,  entirely  to  the  oral  deliverances,  and  he  sup- 
poses that  these  were,  for  the  most  part,  afterwards  committed  to 
writing  by  other  persons,  of  whose  special  endowment  by  the 
Spirit  he  says  nothing. 

That  the  Spirit  did  not  exert  His  energy  with  equal  strength 
and  fullness  in  all  the  recipients  of  the  Word  and  authors  of 
Sacred  Scriptures,  follows  by  necessity  from  the  differences 
.observed  in  the  value  of  their  writings. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  378.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  4;  vii,  313.  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  187;  Ixiii, 
34;   xii,  300  sqq;   xi,  248;  xxvii,  244. 

^  Cf,  supra,  p.  242. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  253 

Our  attention  is  directed  to  the  Co-opei-ative  Hu}?ia?i  Agency, 
even  in  tlie  cases  of  the  chief  prophets  and  apostles,  by  the  use 
which  they  make  of  the  sacred  Mosaic  and  prophetical  writings 
already  at  hand,  and  the  study  to  which  especially  the  prophets 
devoted  themselves,  and  in  which  they  afford  patterns  for  our 
imitation.  It  is  no  contradiction  of  this  position  to  hold,  as  did 
Luther,  that  what  was  thus  derived  by  them  from  earlier  writings 
was  revealed  to  their  minds  only  through  a  specially  clear  and 
complete  illumination  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  same  is  to  be  said 
even  of  the  very  first  scriptural  writer,  Moses,  from  whom  all  the 
others  derived  so  much.  It  was  God  who,  through  him,  estab- 
lished the  Law  and  its  outward  ordinances.  Yet,  at  the  same 
time,  Luther  declares :  We  may  even  say  that  Moses  took  the 
Ten  Commandmenft,  which  had  been  from  the  very  beginning 
imprinted  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  from  the  fathers,  as  Jesus 
Himself  says,  in  John  vii.  21,  of  circumcision.  He  derived  his 
judicial  ordinances  largely  { plenaqtie')  from  more  ancient  customs, 
and  he  may  have  adopted  many  things  from  the  practice  of 
surrounding  nations.' 

We  are  led  still  further  by  observing  the  character  of  the  highly- 
lauded  Psalter,  as  in  it  the  very  heart  of  the  believer  and  its 
inmost  trials  are  revealed,  Luther  lays  special  emphasis  upon 
the  fact  that  the  inward  and  subjective  experiences  of  which  its 
writers  treat,  and  the  earnestness  with  which  they  call  upon  God 
and  testify  of  Him,  are  analogous  to  the  experiences  of  God's 
saints  in  all  ages.  The  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  manifest 
only  in  the  peculiar  fervency  and  power  of  their  language  (  Worf) , 
in  which  they  are  unapproachable. 

In  the  writings  of  Solomon,  the  chief  stress  is  laid,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  upon  the  pious  human  reflection  of  the  king,  walking  in 
faith,  and  gaining  wide  experience  of  the  ways  of  providence. 

But  how  stands  the  case  with  the  Historical  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament?  As  far  as  the  utterances  of  Luther  upon  the  subject 
go,  they  fully  justify  the  inquiry,  whether  the  sacred  writers  were 
not  perhaps  only  impelled  to  their  task,  guided  in  their  contem- 
plation of  the  great  divine  realities,  and  directed  in  the  choice 
and  arrangement  of  their  materials — but  left  in  other  respects  to* 
go  about  their  work  in  precisely  the  same  way  as  other  historians ; 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  253  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  iv,  259  sq. 


254  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

and  whether,  consequently,  their  writings  are  not  entitled  to  a 
place  in  the  book  which  "  God,  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  given  to  the 
Church  "  only  in  view  of  their  historical  contents  and  such  an 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  manner  of  their  presentation 
as  above  indicated.  The  Book  of  Esther,  for  example,  could,  con- 
sistently with  his  expressed  opinion  as  to  its  character,  have  been 
allowed  to  stand  among  the  canonical  books  as  presenting  a 
further  record  of  the  history  of  the  people  of  God — only,  thus, 
on  account  of  its  contents,  and  not  on  account  of  any  recognized 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  its  actual  composition.  Its  historical 
character  Luther  never  called  in  question.' 

In  regard  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  we  need  but 
recall  the  gradation  from  a  Paul  or  John,  who  themselves  made 
use  of  the  earlier  books  in  pious  human  reflection,  to  the  other 
Evangelists,  and,  finally,  to  James.  Nor  must  we  overlook  the 
displacement  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  not  composed  by  an  apostle.  Luther  felt  himself  at  liberty 
to  allow  its  author,  since  he  was  not  an  apostle,  only  a  lower 
degree  of  authority,  and  hence,  also,  doubtless  but  an  inferior 
measure  of  spiritual  inspiration ;  whilst  he  by  no  means  felt  him- 
self compelled  on  this  account  to  exclude  the  book  from  the 
canon.  In  connection  with  the  New  Testament,  however,  we 
must  take  into  special  consideration  those  utterances  of  Luther 
according  to  which  different  portions  of  one  and  the  same  book 
are  represented  as  related  in  different  ways  to  the  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

Even  within  the  limits  of  particular  books — and  that,  in  the 
case  of  those  to  which  he  assigns  the  highest  position — Luther 
does  not  attribute  all  utterances  equally  to  the  higher  revelation. 

As  this  fact  is  of  great  importance  in  assisting  us  to  form  a 
more  correct  judgment  as  to  the  authority  which  he  would  attrib- 
ute to  the  contents  of  a  book  in  view  of  the  various  elements 
which  it  contains,  so  also  it  leads  to  further  conclusions  as  to 
the  co-operation  of  the  divine  and  human  factors  in  the  origina- 
tion of  the  written  Word. 

The  most  striking  passages  in  this  respect  are  the  two  already 
quoted  in  regard  to  the  prophets,  which  are,  indeed,  only  discon- 
nected expressions,  but  which  are  publicly  made  without  the  least 

'  Cf.  the  historical  use  to  which  he  appUes  this  book  in  his  Supputatioanno- 
rum  mundi,  Jena,  iv,  726. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  255 

hesitancy ;  namely,  that  concerning  hay  and  stubble  even  in  such 
excellent  teachers,  and  that  concerning  secular  prophecies,  in 
which  even  they  have  been  mistaken/ 

A  peculiar  interest,  however,  attaches  to  the  deliverances  of 
the  Reformer  in  regard  to  passages  of  Scripture  which  appear  to 
be  mutually  contradictory.  We  must  here  carefully  discriminate 
between  scriptural  presentations  of  saving  truth,  which  constitute 
for  Luther  the  substance  of  Christian  belief,  and  the  narratives 
of  external  historical  events.  Touching  the  former,  it  is  to  Luther 
inconceivable  that  there  should  be  any  contradiction  whatsoever, 
or  any  error,  in  the  canonical  Scriptures  whose  origin  is  to  be 
traced  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  only  in  the  Epistle  of  James  that 
he  finds  anything  of  the  kind,  and  it  is  just  on  account  of  this 
that  he  so  positively  excludes  that  Epistle  from  the  list  of  the  chief 
books.  If  he,  in  some  other  connections,  when  arguing  with 
opponents  who  appeal  to  scriptural  passages  in  support  of  work- 
righteousness,  exalts  the  One  Christ  who  is  Lord  over  the  whole 
Scriptures — and  if  he  says  :  "  If  the  adversaries  have  urged  Scrip- 
ture against  Christ,  we  urge  Christ  against  Scripture  " — he  by  no 
means  designs  thereby  to  acknowledge  that  the  passages  referred 
to  are  really  at  variance  with  the  true  doctrine,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  assert  that  they,  too,  should,  can  and  must  be  inter- 
preted in  harmony  with  the  central  point  of  all  truth.  When 
supposing,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  his  opponents  should 
produce  passages  whose  difficulties  he  could  not  solve,  he  at 
once  adds  :   "  although  this  is  impossible  for  them."^ 

The  case  is  different  with  statements  of  the  second  character. 
Here,  too,  indeed,  he  labors  -with  conscientious  assiduity  and 
acumen  to  remove  the  difficulties.  Of  this,  many  examples  may 
be  found  in  the  discussion  of  the  chronological  data  of  Genesis 
in  his  commentary  upon  that  book,  and  particularly  in  his  Suppu- 
tatio  annorum  mundi,  in  which  he  rebukes  those  who  are  so  ready 
to  cry  :  "  Here  is  an  error."  But  even  apparent  contradictions 
in  the  records  of  the  Evangelists,  such  as  those  in  regard  to  the 
time  of  the  purification  of  the  temple  and  the  place  in  which 
Peter's  denial  occurred,  occasion  him  no  great  concern.  In 
regard  to  the  latter  case,  he  says  that  John  here  makes  confusion, 
and  may  not  have  strictly  observed  the  order  of  events.     How- 

^  Supra,  p.  235.  'Jena,  i,  539  b  sq.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  387. 


256  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ever,  he  explains,  no  great  importance  attaches  to  such  questions. 
He  will  not  attempt  to  solve  the  difficulty.  If  we  have  the  chief 
article  of  faith,  /.  e.,  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  has  died  for  us, 
we  will  not  be  left  in  great  distress,  even  though  we  cannot  answer 
all  other  questions  that  may  be  askedj/  Even  if  we  should,  in 
violation  of  the  order  given  by  John,  locate  Peter's  denial  entirely 
in  the  house  of  Caiaphas,  that  will  not  take  us  either  to  heaven 
or  to  hell.  He  sees  a  departure  from  the  proper  order  also,  for 
example,  in  the  eschatological  discourses  of  Matt.  xxiv.  and  Mark, 
as  compared  with  those  given  by  Luke.  The  two  former  have 
combined  and  commingled  different  discourses.  In  considering 
other  difficulties,  he  supposes  a  corruption  by  a  copyist,  so  that 
we  no  longer  possess — not,  at  least,  in  our  text — the  original  and 
historically-correct  Word  :  as,  for  example,  in  the  number  of  years 
given  in  Acts  xiii.  20  and  in  the  omission  of  Jakim,  in  Matt.  i.  1 1. 
The  chronological  difficulties  of  Old  Testament  history  after  the 
time  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  lead  him  to  remark  that,  as  the  kingdom 
was  at  that  time  full  of  confusion,  so  also  the  record  of  the  period 
is  "  confusissima.'^  Nor  did  he  hesitate,  finally,  to  acknowledge 
tvtw  patent  errors,  finding  such  even  upon  the  lips  of  a  man  who 
has  just  been  declared  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  he  spake, 
namely,  Stephen.  According  to  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  2,  Abraham 
was  called  while  still  in  Mesopotamia ;  according  to  Moses,  not 
until  his  arrival  in  Haran.  Luther  is  well  aware  that  it  is  cus- 
tomary to  suppose  a  double  call,  but  he  does  not  seek  to  escape 
the  difficulty  in  that  way.  He  supposes,  on  the  contrary,  that  it 
went  with  Stephen  as  it  so  often  does  with  us  when  we  make  an 
incidental  allusion  without  stopping  to  consider  all  the  related 
circumstances,  whereas  Moses  writes  as  a  historian.  He  finds 
another  error  in  the  14th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  in  which 
Stephen,  following  the  Alexandrian  version  of  the  Old  Testament, 
reports  75  souls  instead  of  the  70  of  the  Hebrew  text  (Gen.  xlvi. 
27).  He  is  in  doubt  as  to  whether  the  former  figure  crept  into 
the  Alexandrian  text  through  the  carelessness  of  the  translator  or 
that  of  the  copyist,  but  he  says  candidly  that  Stephen  derived  the 
erroneous  number  from  that  source.' 

Luther  has  nowhere  more  expressly   defined   the    limitations 

1  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  71.  Erl.  Ed.,  1,308  sqq.,325;  xlvi,  174;  xiv,  319,  324. 
Jena,  iv,  71S;  cf.  Briefe,  v,  489.  Jena,  iv,  724  b,  749.  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  I2I; 
cf.  Briefe,  ii,  489,  and  Jena,  iv,  749  b.     Op.  Ex.,  xi,  19. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  257 

within  which  such  errors  are  possible  in  the  case  of  even  the  most 
exalted  instruments  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures. Nor  does  he  think  it  necessary  to  make  any  further 
attempt  to  allay  the  fears  which  might  thereby  be  awakened,  lest 
the  very  substance  of  saving  truth  be  rendered  uncertain.  His 
attitude  upon  these  questions  can,  however,  not  cause  us  any 
perplexity,  if  we  but  consider  what  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  observe  in  regard  to  the  origin  and  the  central  point  of  his 
own  faith  and  the  fixed  and  sure  connection  therewith  of  his 
entire  doctrinal  system. 

Nor  can  it  appear  to  us  to  involve  any  real  contradiction,  that 
he  who  here  expresses  his  mind  so  freely  as  to  the  reliability  of 
books  and  their  contents,  should,  under  other  circumstances,  as 
especially  in  the  sacramental  controversy,  cling  so  stubbornly  to 
the  very  letter  of  the  Scriptures.  What  has  been  said  of  the 
difference  between  various  books  of  the  Bible,  and  of  subordinate 
statements  concerning  external  matters,  etc.,  could  have  no  appli- 
cation to  the  words  employed  in  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Here,  on  the  contrary,  it  remains,  for  him,  beyond  all 
controversy  that  the  Lord  and  Master  Himself  speaks,  and  that 
He  desires  to  embrace  in  these  very  words  the  substance  of  the 
true  revelation  of  salvation.  The  relation  of  his  attitude  here  to 
the  freedom  of  his  criticism  elsewhere  can  therefore  awaken  no 
surprise.  The  only  real  question  which  may  arise  is,  why  Luther 
did  not  venture  to  interpret  in  any  other  way  these  Avords  which 
his  fundamental  principles  led  him  to  esteem  so  highly.  In 
explanation  of  this,  we  must  refer  to  the  reasons  assigned  by 
Luther  himself  as  above  cited,  to  the  remaining  discussion  of 
the  present  section,  and  co  the  fuller  treatment  of  the  subject 
in  our  final  review  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments. 


5.  Exposition  and  Understanding  of  Scripture. 

SCRIPTURE    CLEAR ILLUMINATION    BY   THE    HOLY    SPIRIT INTERPRE- 
TATION  IN  HARMONY  WITH   CHRIST ALLEGORICAL    INTERPRETATION 

PRIVATE    JUDGMENT. 

We  come   now  to  the  important  question  :  How  are  we  to 
derive  the  truth  from  the  language  of  Scripture?     We  are  already 
familiar  with  the  leading  principles  of  interpretation  adopted  by 
17 


258  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Luther  from  our  study  of  his  publications  appearing  from  A.  D. 
1520  to  A.  D.  1525.^  There  are  two  features  of  the  subject 
which  come  into  view  in  connection  with  his  general  theory  of 
revelation.  God,  on  the  one  hand,  in  making  the  external, 
openly-proclaimed  Word  His  organ,  has  in  it  presented  to  us  the 
truth  objectively  and  openly.  The  Scriptures  are  not  in  them- 
selves obscure.  We  are  not,  in  the  first  instance,  to  look  for  a 
deeper,  hidden  meaning  instead  of  the  natural  and  literal  sense 
of  the  language  ;  but  we  are  to  accept  the  latter  as  determined 
by  the  principles  of  philology,  and  we  shall  never  find  this 
natural  meaning  obscured  by  any  linguistic  difficulties  in  the 
great  scriptural  presentations  of  saving  truth.  This  position 
Luther  maintained  against  the  Papists,  who  sought  to  confine  the 
privilege  of  interpretation  to  their  traditions  and  tribunals,  against 
the  confusion  introduced  by  the  allegorizing  of  the  ancient 
Fathers,  and  against  the  fanatical  sects.  He  maintained,  how- 
ever, on  the  other  hand,  that  the  inborn  stolidity  and  blindness 
of  the  natural  heart  militate  against  the  true  reception  and  spirit- 
ual understanding  of  that  which  is  objectively  presented  in  the 
Word.  Such  reception  and  understanding  are  possible  only  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  also  exerts  His  illuminating  powe?-  within  the 
individual.  He  is  "  the  proper  Expositor  and  Revealer."  Where 
He  does  not  open  the  Scriptures,  they  cannot  be  understood, 
even  though  they  be  read,  and  however  clear  their  doctrines  in 
themselves  may  be.  Since,  therefore,  the  light  of  the  Spirit, 
under  var\'ing  times  and  circumstances,  breaks  upon  the  minds 
of  men  or  is  withdrawn  from  them,  Luther  can  also  compare  the 
Scriptures,  whose  simplicity  and  clearness  he  so  stoutly  maintains, 
to  a  winding  and  deep  stream,  which  cannot  be  taken  and  used 
everywhere  and  by  everybody.^ 

All  scriptural  truth  is,  according  to  Luther,  to  be  understood 
in  the  light  of  the  one  central  point,  the  centre  of  the  circle. 
Everything  stands  out  in  clear  and  objective  reality  as  seen  in  its 
relation  to  this  centre,  Christ ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  this 
same  Christ,  to  whom  the  hearts  of  men  must  be  inwardly  drawn 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  are  thus  led  by  the  clear  scriptural 
testimony  to  Christ,  the  Centre,  and  by  the  illumination  of  the 

1  Vol.  I.,  pp.  432  sqq.,  503  sqq. 
''■  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  334 ;  xlvii,  76. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  259 

supreme  Expositor  and  Interpreter,  to  apprehend  in  its  entirety 
the  fundamental  basis  of  the  Christian  faith.  And  this  is  the 
faith  in  accordance  with  which  thenceforth  all  separate  utterances 
are  to  be  interpreted.  This  is  what  Luther  means  when  he  says 
that  we  must  so  expound  the  Scriptures  "  that  they  may  harmo- 
nize with  the  doctrines  of  (the)  faith";  and  that  we  should 
"  teach  that  which  accords  with  faith  in  Christ."  He  here,  in 
harmony  with  the  dogmaticians,  applies  what  is  said  of  prophesy- 
ing in  Rom.  xii.  7,  asserting  that  Paul  there  lays  down  rules  to 
regulate  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures.^  In  accordance  with 
this  we  must  understand  also  the  statement  above  cited  concern- 
ing an  urging  of  "  Christ  against  Scripture."  If  any  passage  of 
reputed  Scripture  could  not  be  without  violence  thus  interpreted, 
he  would  no  longer  regard  it  as  truly  scriptural.  "  Scripture  is 
to  be  understood  in  harmony  with  Christ  (/;'<?  ChrUto) — there- 
fore it  must  either  be  capable  of  reference  to  Him,  or  it  is  not  to 
be  considered  as  true  Scripture."  ' 

If  we  look  now  for  further  deliverances  concerning  the  Proper 
Sense  of  Scripture,  as  opposed  to  allegorical  interpretations,  we 
discover  only  a  further  development  of  the  principles  already 
reviewed.^  The  traditional  idea  of  a  four -fold  sense  he  re- 
gards as  utterly  useless  and  impious.  It  mangles  the  Scrip- 
tures and  casts  a  shadow  of  uncertainty  over  everything  which 
they  contain,  and  it  is  then  expected  that  men  will  resort  to 
the  papal  chair  to  learn  what  is  really  tme.  The  proper  his- 
torical sense  is  for  him,  on  the  contrary,  the  sensus  capifaUs, 
legitimus,  gejumius,  vcrus,  solidus.  He  rejects,  accordingly, 
the  application  of  the  Pauline  conception  of  "  spirit  and  let- 
ter "  to  the  distinctions  between  the  different  senses  of  scrip- 
tural language.  His  explanation  of  this  passage  is  in  harmony 
with  his  declarations  in  controversy  with  Emser  ^  and  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Second  Sunday  in  Advent,  1516}  The  Law  with- 
out grace,  says  he — and  hence  every  law — is  "  letter."  The  Law 
has  this  character,  moreover,  not  in  itself,  but  for  us,  in  so  far  as 
it  points  to  the  Spirit,  which  it  reqiiires  for  its  fulfilment.  This, 
and  not  a  mystical,  anagogical  sense,  is  to  be  understood  by  the 
"  spiritual  understanding  "  {spiritualis  intelligentia) .     Hence,  no 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  137;  xxv,  81.  ^  Jena,  i,  539  b. 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  433  sq.  *  Ibid.,  pp.  188,  192. 


2  6o  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

dogmatic  evidence  of  any  kind  can  ever  be  deduced  from  an 
allegorical  interpretation.  It  was  a  very  difficult  thing  for  him, 
he  confesses,  to  tear  himself  loose  from  the  prevalent  method  of 
allegorizing ;  but  he  has  now  determined  to  have  no  more  to  do 
with  it.  He  warns  others  against  the  perils  connected  with  it. 
He  hates  it,  as  he  himself  has  had  a  taste  of  its  bitter  fruit. 

Yet  he  would  not  condemn  all  use  of  allegory,  for  even  Christ 
and  the  apostles  at  times  employed  it.  He  notes,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  limitations  under  which  it  may  not  only  be  permissible, 
but  may  be  employed  to  excellent  effect.  He  lays  down  the 
principles,  that  we  must  either  have  scriptural  precedent  for  the 
allegorical  use  of  the  matter  in  hand,  or  must  be  able  in  some 
other  way  to  base  the  allegorical  interpretation  upon  the  analogy 
of  firmly-estabHshed  principles  of  Scripture,  or  articles  of  faith. 
The  historieal  events  which  are  to  be  allegorically  employed  must 
be,  first  of  all,  accepted  as  actual  occurrences.  Even  then,  alle- 
gories cannot  be  used  as  arguments  in, discussion.  They  may, 
however,  serve  to  clothe  in  picturesque  garb  doctrines  previously 
proved  and  established ;  and  pictures  of  this  kind,  like  parables, 
commonly  make  a  powerful  impression  upon  the  multitude. 
They  do  not  belong  to  the  sphere  of  dialectics,  which  must  do 
battle,  and  display  the  iron  blade  to  the  opponent,  but  to  that  of 
rhetoric,  which  is  often  sportive  and  brandishes  a  wooden  sword. 
Thus,  for  example,  St.  Paul,  in  Gal.  iv.  22  sq.,  after  maintaining 
the  doctrine  in  hand  dialectically,  and,  as  it  were,  with  the  sword 
in  open  combat,  adds,  for  further  elucidation  and  adornment  of 
the  subject,  the  allegory  based  on  the  relations  of  Sarah  and 
Hagar  to  Abraham,  which,  on  account  of  its  departure  from  the 
historical  sense  of  the  original  narrative,  was  less  available  for  use 
in  controversy.  No  distinction  is  made,  in  this  respect,  between 
allegory  and  anagogy,  etc. 

Luther  himself,  even  in  his  latest  writings,  makes  a  free  use  of 
allegories.  We  may  regard  these,  for  the  greater  part,  as  sport- 
ive inventions  of  the  mind.  At  all  events,  he  never  uses  them  as 
proofs,  but  only  playfully  or  ornanaentally.  It  is  noticeable  that 
after  about  A.  D.  1525-1528  he  does  not  make  nearly  so  free  nor 
frequent  use  of  them.  We  may  compare,  for  instance,  the  earlier 
sermons  of  the  Church  Postils  with  the  later  sermons  of  the  same 
work  and  with  those  of  the  House  Postils,  and,  particularly,  the 
Latin    Commentary  upon   Genesis  with    the  Sermons  upon  the 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  26  I 

same  book  published  in  1527.  In  the  Commetitary  referred  to, 
he  follows  strictly  the  plan  of  first  fixing  the  proper  and  natural 
sense  of  every  historical  record,  however  trifling  and  insignificant 
it  may  appear  to  be,  and  then  holding  it  up  for  the  devout  con- 
templation of  his  readers  in  the  significance  which  it  may  have, 
in  this  its  historical  sense,  for  the  faith  and  life  of  the  believer. 
Only  after  this  has  been  done,  does  he  sometimes  add  an  alle- 
gorical interpretation  as  a  kind  of  appendix.' 

In  respect  to  the  Right  and  Duty  of  the  Individual,  with  inner 
reliance  upon  the  impulse  and  illumination  of  the  Spirit,  to  derive 
the  truth  for  himself  from  the  clear  Scriptures,  and  even  to  main- 
tain it  in  opposition  to  the  false  teachings  of  the  official  leaders 
of  the  Church,  the  chief  passage  in  the  writings  of  Luther  is  his 
declaration  upon  the  subject  in  his  controversy  with  Erasmus.'^ 
The  section  of  the  Church  Postils  published  A.  D.  1527  declares 
again  :  "  that  all  Christians  have  the  power  and  right  to  judge 
all  doctrines  and  to  separate  themselves  from  false  teachers  "  ; 
for  Christ  says  of  His  sheep,  that  they  hear  His  voice,  and  not 
the  voice  of  a  stranger.  Luther  knows,  indeed,  very  well,  that 
if  we  allow  men  thus  to  study  the  Scriptures  for  themselves,  the 
devil  will  stir  up  the  spirit  of  strife  and  faction,  but — "  if  we  seek 
to  depend  upon  human  councils  and  counsels,  we  lose  the  Scrip- 
tures altogether  and  remain,  hair  and  hide,  the  devil's  prey  "  ; 
and,  moreover,  the  Word  of  God  alone  stands  fast  forever, 
whilst  errors  are  ever  rising  beside  it  and  falling  again.^ 

6.  Study  of  the  Scriptures. 

INWARD     PREPARATION MYSTICAL     IDEAS INABILITY     OF     REASON 

REGENERATION     ENLIGHTENS     REASON SCRIPTURES     FURNISH     ALL 

RELIGIOUS    TRUTH HUMAN    CONFESSIONS. 

The  Scriptures  are  thus  the  rule  according  to  which  Christian 

^  Cf.  upon  the  Subject  of  Allegorizing,  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  316  sqq.  Comm.  ad 
Gal.,  iii,  344  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  295  sqq.  Briefe,  ii,  267.  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  305 
sqq.;  ii,  302  sq. ;  iv,  189  sqq.;  vi,  347.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  164  sqq.  Comm.  ad 
Gal.,  244  sqq.  It  is  clear  from  the  above  that  Luther,  in  designating  Paul's 
allegory  not  tenable  as  an  argument  (nicht  stichhaltig),  did  not  mean  to  cast 
any  reproach  upon  the  apostle. 

^Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  506  sqq.  'Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  367;   xxx,  19,  21  sq. 


262  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

doctrine  is  to  be  framed — the  source  whence  Christian  knowl- 
edge is  to  flow.  To  every  one  who  desires  to  attain  this  knowl- 
edge and  impart  it  to  others  applies  what  Luther  says  of  the 
theologian  :  "  Let  it  be  his  first  care  to  be  a  good  textualist." 
To  this  end  there  is  required,  in  the  first  place,  an  understanding 
of  the  prii/iary  sense  of  the  words  of  Scripture,  and,  with  this — 
not,  indeed,  for  every  Christian,  but,  at  least,  for  every  proper 
expositor  of  Scripture,  or  "  prophet  " — an  understanding,  also,  of 
the  languages  in  which  the  blade  of  the  Spirit  was  originally 
encased  as  in  a  scabbard.  To  such  a  knowledge  of  the  words, 
or  grammatical  proficiency,  must  be  added  also  a  knowledge  of 
the  subjects  discussed,  for  it  is  not  sufficient  to  know  merely  the 
names  of  religious  verities.  It  is  necessary,  for  this  purpose,  to 
gain  a  view  of  the  inner  relations  of  the  truth  presented,  and 
thus,  particularly,  is  a  knowledge  of  the  New  Testament  essential 
to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  Old.  But,  as  the  spiritual  blind- 
ness of  the  natural  man  stands  opposed  to  the  clear  light  of  the 
Word  and  hinders  the  true  inward  appropriation  of  the  latter,  it 
is,  above  all,  requisite  that  man  himself  be,  with  his  own  free 
consent,  inwardly  prepared  to  receive  it  by  the  influejice  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Hence,  Luther  establishes  the  three  rules  for  the 
proper  study  of  the  Scriptures  :  prayer,  meditation,  temptation 
{oratio,  meditatio,  tentatio).  We  must,  first  of  all,  die  to  our 
own  selfhood,  and  to  visible  created  things — must  return  to 
nothingness  {redigi  in  nihilu?n).  This  comes  to  pass  when  we 
endure  the  cross  and  death.  The  "  negative  theology  "  does  not 
consist  in  that  in  which  it  is  located  by  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  ; 
but  in  the  holy  cross  and  spiritual  trials.  ''  The  cross  alone  is 
our  theology."  "  Theology  ought  to  be,  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end,  practical.  It  is  by  living,  yea,  by  dying,  that  one 
becomes  a  theologian,  and  not  by  knowing,  reading  and  specu- 
lating." > 

This  terminology  calls  again  to  mind  the  relation  of  Luther  to 
the  theology  of  JSTysticism,  but,  at  the  same  time,  sets  forth  clearly 
his  opposition  to  the  type  of  Mysticism  which  had  been  up  to 
that  time  widely  disseminated  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  245.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  183  sqq.  (Cf.  statements  in  regard 
to  the  lack  of  linguistic  proficiency  among  the  Bohemians,  Ibid.,  xxviii,  420.) 
Op.  Ex.,  iv,  36,  41.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  403.  (i,  69  sqq.)  Op.  Ex.,  xiv,  261,  239; 
xviii,  302;  XX,  15. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  263 

and  whose  aberrations  afterwards  led  to  the  Fanaticism  of  the 
age  of  the  Reformation.  The  latter  falls  under  the  condemnation 
which  he  so  frequently  uttered  against  "  speculations."  He 
demands  that  all  the  cogitations  of  the  renewed  inner  man  attach 
themselves  to  the  objective  Word,  and  draw  their  support  from 
it.  This  is  already  strikingly  evident  in  his  profoundly  mystical 
tract,  Von  der  Freiheif  eines  Christenmenschen.  Nor  are  we,  as 
the  Mystics  say,  by  our  own  "  actus  elicitl''''  to  cast  ourselves  into 
the  darkness,  and  to  rise  above  existence  and  non-existence  to 
God.  Of  such  he  says,  in  his  Operationes  in  Psalmos,  published 
so  early  as  15 19,  that  he  doubts  whether  they  understand  them- 
selves. In  after  years,  he  avoided  the  terms  which  they  employed, 
as  being  liable  to  misconstruction.  He  makes  use  of  one  of 
Tauler's  expressions,  indeed — "  redigi  in  nihihim  " — in  one  of  his 
later  writings  (the  passage  above  quoted  in  which  the  words  occur 
is  from  \\\q  Operationes),  but  immediately  adds:  Tauler  here 
speaks,  indeed,  not  in  scriptural  terms,  but  in  a  language  un- 
known to  the  inspired  Word.' 

If  we  now,  with  such  conception  of  scriptural  revelation,  turn 
to  consider  the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  divine  things  to  which 
Reason  is  able  by  its  own  power  to  lead,  we  shall  find  that  Luther 
regards  the  "  feeble  "  knowledge  of  God  thus  attainable  as  not  a 
whit  better  than  no  knowledge  at  all.  The  real  truth  is  not  in  it, 
and  against  the  reception  of  this  reason  strives,  just  as  the  natural 
will  is  in  rebellion  against  the  divine.  We  have,  in  a  former  con- 
nection, met  the  assertion  of  the  Reformer,  that  only  the  light  of 
Scripture,  and  not  that  of  reason,  can  avail  in  matters  of  scriptural 
concern,  although  he  still  recognized  a  certain  natural  knowledge 
of  God  which  is  within  the  province  of  reason.  Returning  now 
to  the  subject,  and  viewing  it  in  the  light  of  his  theory  of  the 
authority  and  interpretation  of  Scripture,  we  must  bear  both  of 
these  principles  in  mind.  Reason  has  still,  according  to  Luther, 
and  that,  too,  while  man  is  yet  in  the  state  of  sin,  a  certain 
capacity  for  dealing  with  affairs  of  the  higher  sphere,  is  able  to 
infer  the  existence  of  an  eternal  divine  Being,  and  has,  also,  by 
virtue  of  the  Law  written  upon  the  heart,  a  "  legal  perception 
{cognitionc7n  legalevi),  so  that  it  knows  what  is  right  or  wrong." 
But,  inasmuch  as  it  neither  will  nor  can  discover  the  very  essence 

iQp.  Ex.,  xiv,  261 ;  x,  7, 


264  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

of  divine  truth,  its  feeble  knowledge  involves  not  only  a  lack,  but 
a  positive  perversion,  of  the  truth.  This  feature  of  the  subject 
Luther  constantly  emphasizes,  and  we  must  explain  it  in  this 
connection  more  closely.  He  very  frequently  asserts  that  reason 
is  without  any  knowledge  of  what  God  is  for  us,  or  of  the  inmost 
heart  of  God  in  its  thoughts  concerning  us — of  those  themes, 
therefore,  which  constitute  the  very  core  of  scriptural  truth. 
Reason  apprehends  not  a  particle  of  the  knowledge  of  grace  and 
truth  (John  i.  14),  of  the  depths  of  divine  mercy,  of  the  un- 
fathomable depths  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  the  divine  will. 
The  Law  written  upon  the  heart  gives  her  only  a  left-handed 
knowledge  of  God.  Her  knowledge  of  the  Law,  likewise,  is  not 
the  real  knowledge  of  that  which  God  demands  of  us  :  for  even 
in  so  far  as  she  knows  the  contents  of  the  Law,  she  still  fails  to 
understand  it.  She  does  not  comprehend  that  love  is  the  Law, 
nor  does  she,  finally,  at  all  apprehend  the  truth,  that  we  are  to 
attain  eternal  salvation  by  the  will  and  commandment  of  God, 
but,  at  the  very  best,  seeks  to  be  saved  by  her  own  external 
righteousness.  Of  all  the  above  she  knows  nothing  at  all,  and 
is  unwilling  to  learn,  but  strives  with  all  her  power  against  the 
acceptance  of  such  truth.  Hence,  all  that  any  heathen  philoso- 
phers have,  however  deftly,  argued  concerning  God,  and  His 
providence,  and  His  government  of  the  world,  is,  in  consequence 
of  their  ignorance  of  the  scriptural  relation  of  God  in  Christ,  the 
Saviour,  the  greatest  non-knowledge  of  God  and  simple  blas- 
phemy. Even  the  very  particulars  which  fall  within  the  range  of 
the  natural  knowledge  of  God  are  so  far  from  being  thus  appre- . 
hended  in  their  real  character,  that  Luther  says  in  regard  to  them, 
and  thus  in  regard  to  the  entire  sphere  of  religious  truth,  that 
reason  understands  nothing  at  all  about  them  :  "  It  is  not  possible 
to  understand  even  the  smallest  article  of  faith  by  human  reason ; 
so  that  no  man  on  earth  has  ever  been  able  to  catch  and  grasp  a 
proper  idea,  or  certain  knowledge,  of  God."  Not  even  a  spark 
of  the  knowledge  of  God  has  remained  unperverted  in  man  since 
the  Fall.  In  matters  of  faith,  reason  is  stone  blind,  and  cannot 
understand  a  single  letter  of  divine  wisdom.  The  sphere  in 
which  she  can  really  comprehend  anything,  and  in  which  she  is 
entitled  to  be  heard  at  all,  does  not  extend  beyond  things  secular, 
earthly  and  material.  A  discrimination  may,  indeed,  be  made 
between    the    lower    and    the    higher    reason  {ratio    infe7-ior  et 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  26$ 

superior)  ;  but  although,  in  that  case,  the  former  must  be  re- 
garded as  having  to  do  with  affairs  of  the  home  and  the  state 
( /^'///m ) ,  and  the  latter  with  the  sphere  of  religion,  it  still  remains 
true  that,  in  the  last-named  sphere,  reason  can  of  herself  neither 
accomplish  nor  see  anything,  but  that  we  can  here  only  learn 
and  meditate  upon  that  which  is  revealed  in  the  Word.  There- 
fore, "  Just  shut  your  eyes  and  say :  What  Christ  says  must  be 
true,  though  no  man  can  understand  how  it  can  be  true  !"  Just 
close  up  and  blindfold  reason,  and  give  yourself  up  entirely  to 
that  which  the  Word  from  heaven  reveals  !  "  In  theology,  so 
much  must  be  heard,  and  believed,  and  established,  in  the  heart. 
God  is  truthful,  however  absurd  the  things  which  He  declares  in 
His  Word  may  appear  to  reason."  Let  him  who  desires  to  keep 
in  the  right  path  say,  I  believe — and  not,  I  conclude,  or  judge — 
that  this  is  right  or  wrong.  The  ability  to  comprehend  the  arti- 
cles of  faith  revealed  in  the  Word  is  purely  a  gift  and  grace  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Luther  declares  that  he  bears  this  testimony 
as  one  who  has  himself  had  no  little  experience  in  the  matter ; 
but  it  is  with  special  reference  to  the  Sacramentarians  that  he 
discusses  the  subject,  and  it  was  the  conflict  with  them  which 
brought  Out  the  doctrine  into  such  clear  outline.' 

In  regeneration,  a  f^eia  light  dawns  within  the  soul,  the  faith 
awakened  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Man  lays  aside  his  own  light, 
his  own  thoughts,  his  own  will.  He  becomes  a  new  man,  who 
regards  everything  in  a  different  light,  reasons,  judges,  wills,  etc., 
otherwise  than  he  had  done  before.  Luther  designates  this  a 
quenching  of  the  light  of  reason ;  that  is,  in  so  far  as  the  latter 
was  perverted — had  transcended  its  appropriate  sphere,  and 
sought  by  itself  to  find  the  path  to  God.  At  the  same  time,  he 
describes  it  also  as  merely  a  change  of  the  man  in  his  chief 
endowment,  the  natural  light.  Of  the  light  of  reason  he  says 
(A.  D.  1521),  that  it  must  be  controlled  by  a  spirit  illumin- 
ated by  faith,  as  by  a  higher  light:  and  (in  the  Tischrede?i)  : 
Reason,  which  is  before  simple  darkness,  is  in  the  regenerate  en- 
lightened and  quickened  by  faith,  and  is  now  a  glorious  instrument 
of  God,  strives  no  longer  against  faith,  but  promotes  and  serves 

'Supra,  p.  218  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  85  sqq.;  x,  182;  xiv,  144  sq.  Op. 
Ex.,  ii.  167  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  174.  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  268.  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  400  ;  xlvi, 
291.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  234.  Erl.  Ed.,  xx,  132  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  245.  Erl, 
Ed.,  xviii,  III  sqq. 


266  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

it.^  We  find,  however,  no  more  precise  discussion  of  the  activity 
thus  attributed  to  reason  in  the  hves  of  the  regenerate.  The  entire 
emphasis  is  constantly  laid  upon  the  fact,  that  to  this  enlightened 
reason  the  material  of  truth  is  given  only  in  the  Word.  There  is 
left,  therefore,  no  sphere  for  the  activity  indicated,  except  in  the 
formal  treatment,  in  thought  and  speech,  of  the  material  thus 
furnished. 

We  have  several  times  found  Luther  demanding  that  the  opin- 
ions he  was  combating  be  established  "by  Scripture  or  reason."  ■' 
Even  when  first  used,  as  we  attempted  to  show,  this  language 
was  not  intended  to  imply  that  the  authority  of  Scripture  and  the 
judgments  of  reason  are  upon  a  par,  or  that  the  latter  can  ever 
be  allowed  to  contradict  the  former.  But  it  is  very  significant 
that  in  the  later  years  of  his  life  such  expressions  are  no  longer 
employed.  But  even  more  extreme  in  tendency  than  the  above 
expression  is  one  occurring  in  the  tract,  De  votis  monasticis,  in 
which  he  appeals  to  the  light  of  reason  to  prove  that  a  vow  is  no 
longer  binding  when  its  fulfilment  has  become  impossible.^  He 
there  says :  "  The  natural  reason,  that  crude  light  of  nature, 
although  it  cannot  of  itself  attain  to  the  light  and  works  of  God, 
so  that  its  judgment  is  fallacious  in  affirmative,  is  nevertheless 
certain  in  negative,  conclusions ;  for  reason  does  not  comprehend 
what  God  is,  but  nevertheless  comprehends  with  the  greatest 
certainty  what  God  is  not."  Thus  he  thinks,  further,  reason 
does  not  know  what  is  right  before  God  (/.  e.,  faith),  and  yet 
knows  very  clearly  that  unbelief,  disobedience,  etc.,  is  wrong. 
To  say  nothing  at  present  of  the  possibility  of  maintaining  such 
a  distinction,  it  is  evident  that  the  theory  here  advanced  in  such 
general  terms  might  have  been  employed  also  by  the  Sacramen- 
tarians ;  for  example,  against  Luther's  doctrine  of  a  God  binding 
Himself  to  visible  signs.  Such  use  of  them,  indeed,  against  any 
doctrine  which  the  Scriptures  seemed  to  him  to  clearly  teach 
would  doubtless  have  been  at  any  time  rejected  by  Luther ;  but 
it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  he  would  in  later  years  under  any 
circumstances  have  expressed  himself  in  this  way. 

Luther,  in  a  special  dissertation,^  discusses  the  question,  whether 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  X,  206  sq.,  182;  xlv,  221.  Tischr.,  ii,  167  sq. ;  cf.  also  Vol.  I.,  p. 
436  sq.  (Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  94). 

*  Vol.  L,  pp.  279,  282,  436  sq.  ^  Jena,  li,  527  b:  cf.   Vol.  I.,  p.  453. 

*  Jena,  i,  567  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  267 

a  thing  can  be  false  in  philosophy,  which  he  considers  the  science 
of  mere  reason,  and  at  the  same  time  true  in  theology,  replying 
decidedly  in  the  affirmative.  Thus  he  says,  for  example,  that 
the  declaration  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  true  in  theology, 
is  in  philosophy  simply  impossible  and  absurd ;  for,  according  to 
the  latter,  the  natural  inference  would  be,  that  God  had  become 
a  created  substance.  According  to  philosophy,  again,  we  would 
be  compelled  to  argue  :  God  the  Father  begets ;  God  the  Father 
is  the  divine  Being  {essentia)  :  therefore  the  divine  Being  begets. 
The  solution  of  the  contradiction  involved  he  finds  in  the  fact, 
that  the  conceptions  of  God,  the  divine  nature,  etc.,  have  in 
theology  a  force  and  significance  which  are  dilTerent  from  those 
attaching  to  the  same  terms  in  philosophy,  and  which  lie  beyond 
the  range  of  philosophical  thought  and  language.  \Mien  philoso- 
phy undertakes  to  pass  judgment  upon  such  propositions,  or  to 
draw  inferences  from  them,  it  has,  in  his  oj;)inion,  intruded  upon 
a  sphere  for  the  realities  of  which  it  has  no  capacity,  and  finds 
its  own  conceptions  and  syllogisms  much  too  contracted.  In  the 
same  way,  he  proceeds  to  argue,  the  same  thing  does  not  always 
hold  true  in  other  differing  spheres  of  knowledge.  In  the  doc- 
trine of  weights,  for  example,  it  would  be  erroneous  to  claim  that 
weights  could  be  computed  by  the  point  and  line  of  mathematics 
(point  and  line,  belonging  to  another  sphere,  are  here  not  at  all 
applicable).  Even  in  one  sphere  of  philosophy,  that  may  be 
true  which  in  another  sphere  of  the  same  science  is  false.  Thus, 
it  is  true  in  the  sphere  of  the  earth's  atmosphere,  that  moisture 
makes  moist,  but  the  same  statement  is  false  if  applied  to  the 
(celestial)  sphere  of  fire  '  (/.  e.,  the  conception  of  moisture,  with 
which  one  division  of  natural  philosophy,  or  physics,  sets  out, 
does  not  extend  to  all  other  divisions) .  From  all  of  the  above 
he  draws  the  conclusion,  that  we  should  leave  dialectics  and 
philosophy  to  their  own  appropriate  spheres,  and  learn  to  speak 
"  in  new  tongues  "  (according  to  the  new  and  peculiarly-consti- 
tuted material  furnished  us  in  Christianity,  and  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  who  enables  us  to  comprehend  it). 

It  is  not  our  task  at  present  to  inquire  critically  how  we  are, 
upon  Luther's  theory,  to  conceive  of  that  very  intimate  relation 
which,  in  view  of  the  unity  of  the  human  spirit  in  general  and 

iCf.  Op.  Ex.,i,  35. 


268  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  identity  of  that  spirit  before  and  after  regeneration,  must 
exist  between  the  old,  feeble  and  perverted  light  whence  we 
derive  the  natural  knowledge  of  God  and  the  new  light ;  or, 
further,  between  the  entire  capacity  (light)  for  matters  of  the 
higher  sphere  and  the  "  inferior  reason."  We  can  only  say,  in 
passing,  that  Luther  does  not  furnish  us  the  desired  information 
upon  this  interesting  point.  In  regard  to  the  condition  of  man 
before  regeneration,  we  must  refer  the  reader  to  the  entire  doc- 
trine concerning  man  in  the  state  of  sin  and  to  the  connection  of 
the  foregoing  positions  with  the  utterances  of  Luther  in  regard  to 
the  human  will  as  enslaved  by  sin.  Particularly  worthy  of  notice, 
even  in  what  has  already  fallen  under  our  view,  is  the  intimate 
connection  in  which  the  whole  compass  of  religious  knowledge  is 
represented  as  standing  with  our  personal  moral  and  religious 
attitude  toward  God  and  with  the  inmost  nature  of  God,  /.  c, 
His  love,  revealing  itself  to  us,  and  His  consequent  i^ractical 
attitude  toward  us. 

It  is  regarded  thus,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Luther  as  settled  once 
for  all  that  all  religious  truth  is  given  us  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Neither  mere  reason,  nor  even  a  so-called  higher  light  of  the 
Spirit,  supposed  to  be  granted  to  particular  believers  or  the 
official  leaders  of  the  Church,  can  be  permitted  to  oppose  the 
revealed  Word,  or  to  go  beyond  it.  Nevertheless,  we  have  already 
heard  him  speak  of  a  progressive  development  of  doctrine,  as 
constantly,  and  even  in  his  own  day,  in  progress.  That  which 
Christ  and  His  apostles  have  said  is  to  be  further  elaborated 
in  all  ways,'  and  this  is  to  be  done  by  means  of  that  continuous 
Christian  prophesying  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  special 
office  is  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures.  He  acknowledges, 
also,  that  it  is  the  privilege  and  duty  of  post-apostolic  Chris- 
tianity to  epitomize  the  principal  teachings  of  Scripture  in  brief 
confessions,  and,  when  necessary,  to  employ  in  doctrinal  defi- 
nitions expressions  not  themselves  found  in  the  Scriptures.  He 
says  thus  of  the  ancient  symbols,  that  they  are  derived  from 
the  Bible,  and  that  they  embody  in  a  brief  summary  that  which 
is  presented  in  a  discursive  form  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  There 
is,  however,  a  noticeable  difference  between  his  earlier  and  later 
writings  in  this  respect.     He  was  at  first,  in  his  zeal  for  the 

1  Supra,  p.  222  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  269 

recognition  of  the  simple  divine  Word,  much  more  averse  than 
afterward  to  the  employment  of  any  dogmatic  terminology  not 
derived  directly  from  it.  Even  he,  however,  was  led  to  recognize 
the  necessity  of  such  terms  for  the  positive  establishment  of 
scriptural  truth,  especially  as  against  heretics  who  sought  to  per- 
vert it ;  and  he  then  availed  himself  of  those  which  were  already 
current  in  the  Church.  The  former  disposition  is  seen,  as  late 
as  A.  D.  15  21,  in  his  Confutafio  rationis  Latomianae,  in  which 
he  zealously  maintains  the  simplicity  of  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
no  man  should  presume  to  express  any  thought  in  clearer  or 
purer  terms  than  God  has  employed ;  and,  from  this  point  of 
view,  he  criticises  particularly  the  word  o/noovaiog  in  the  confessional 
definitions  of  the  Trinity,  although  he  himself  is  in  hearty  and 
full  accord  with  the  positions  maintained  in  the  latter.  In 
1539,  on  the  contrary  (compare  also  statements  in  his  work 
against  Erasmus,  Jena,  iii,  218),  he  justifies  the  use  of  this  word, 
and  then  remarks,  in  general,  that  the  position,  that  no  more,  nor 
other,  words  than  those  found  ia  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  used, 
cannot  be  maintained,  especially  when  engaged  in  controversy 
or  seeking  to  refute  heretics.  He  instances  the  employment  of 
the   terms,  original  sin  and  inherited  depravity  (^Adamsseuche) . 

Thus,  too,  he  availed  himself  in  his  Christology,  for  example, 
of  the  scholastic  terms  '•'  communicatio  idiomatnmr  He  had  at 
an  earlier  day  cited,  as,  a  pure  human  invention  without  any 
scriptural  authority,  the  maxim  :  "  The  essence  of  God  neither  is 
begotten  nor  begets"  ;  whereas  he  aftenvard,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  disputation  above  referred  to,  acknowledges  its  validity.^ 

Among  the  ancient  symbols,  he  prized  above  all  others  the 
simple,  so-called  Apostles'  Creed.  No  one,  he  declares,  could 
have  better  summarized  the  truth  in  so  brief  and  clear  a  form. 
It  was  probably,  he  thinks,  either  composed  by  the  apostles 
themselves,  or  arranged  from  their  writings  or  sermons  by  the 
most  competent  of  their  pupils.  In  the  Smakald  Articles,  he 
expressly  accepts  also  the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed.  In  a 
manuscript  of  the  year  1538,  in  seeking  to  establish  the  agree- 
ment of  his  teaching  with  the  doctrines  of  the  entire  true  Chris- 
tian Church,  he  combines,  as  the  three  symbols  of  the  ecumenic 
Church,  the  Apostles'  and  Athanasian  Creeds  and  that  "  attributed 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  83.  Jena,  ii,  430  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  292.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi, 
330  sq.     Jena,  i,  567  b. ;  cf.  also  Jena,  i,  572. 


270  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

to  Ambrose  and  Augustine,"  /.  e.,  the  Te  Deum  laudamus,  add- 
ing also  the  Nicene.  He  regards  the  Athanasian  symbol  as 
designed  to  be  a  defence  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.' 

Beyond  this,  Luther,  as  may  be  strikingly  seen  by  a  comparison 
of  his  doctrinal  writings  with  those  of  earlier  theologians,  or  with 
those  of  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  always  strove,  as  far  as 
possible,  even  in  the  very  language  used,  merely  to  further 
"  elaborate "  {aussireichen)  the  divine  Word.  He  adopted, 
indeed,  particularly  in  expounding  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
the  traditional  formulas.  But  he  was  always  dissatisfied,  for 
example,  with  the  terms,  "  Trinity  "  and  "  Dreifaltigkeit,'^  although 
we  cannot  do  without  such  words.  He  finds  them  cold,  and 
not  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  subject.  The  term  "  Drci- 
faltigkeif''  he  pronounces  "  real  poor  German,"  and  the  term 
"  Dreiheit "  as  "  sounding  altogether  too  much  like  mockery." 
He  always,  instead  of  following  the  "  multiform  distinctions, 
dreams  and  fancies  of  the  schools,"  prefers  to  take  "  only 
expressions  out  of  the  Scriptures."  ''■ 

7.  Fundamental  Articles. 

ALL   DOCTRINES   CLOSELY   RELATED IGNORANCE   OR   DENIAL  BY  INDI- 
VIDUALS  CHURCH    MUST    CONFESS    ALL    DOCTRINES. 

We  have  seen  that  Luther  regarded  the  contents  of  the  divine 
Word  as  constituting  one  consistent  whole,  with  one  central 
point  dominating  all.  We  are  now  brought  back  to  this  thought 
by  the  interesting  question,  tvhether,  and  in  how  far,  it  is  to  t>e 
demanded  tJiat  all  the  separate  items,  or  articles  {^of faith),  shall 
be  believed  by  every  individual  Christian  and  confessed  by  the 
Church.  We  have  noticed  how  decidedly  Luther  gives  prece- 
dence to  the  chief  article,  whereas,  as  he  says,  the  other  articles 
are  not  so  strongly  urged  {liart  getrieben)  by  the  Scriptures. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  latter  are  also  founded  upon  the 
Scriptures ;  and,  as  Luther  maintains  especially  against  the 
Sacramentarians,  they  all  hang  together  as  one  whole  as  closely 
and  necessarily  as  the  different  parts  of  one  ring.     Two  questions 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  29;   xxv,  115;   xxiii,  252  sqq. 
2  Ibid,  ix,  I  ;  iv,  168;  vi,  230;  xii,  378. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  2'Jl 

are  here  involved,  which  must  be,  first  of  all,  carefully  discrimi- 
nated :  first,  whether  a  man  who  accepts  the  chief  article  may  at 
the  same  time,  without  endangering  his  salvation,  remain  in 
ignorance  of  other  separate  articles;  and  secondly,  whether, 
after  all  the  articles  have  been  fully  set  before  an  individual, 
error  persisted  in  with  respect  to  separate  points,  or  even  the 
open  denial  of  some,  can  still  exist  together  with  a  saving  faith 
in  the  central  point  of  all,  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.  We  find 
an  answer  to  the  first  question  at  least,  in  Luther's  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  faith  of  Adam  (who  believed  in  Christ  as  the  seed 
of  the  woman)  as  a  saving  faith,  although  the  latter  knew  as  yet 
nothing  of  Christ's  birth  from  a  virgin.*  We  find  in  Luther's 
writings  no  'discussion  of  the  question  in  so  far  as  subjects  of 
the  new  covenant  are  concerned.  To  these  the  entire  truth  of 
Scripture  has  been  already  revealed ;  and  we  are  thus  at  once 
brought  to  face  the  second  question.  Here  Luther  not  only 
declares,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  chief  article  will  not  permit 
those  who  believe  it  to  fall  into  heresy ;  but  he  declares,  also, 
that  he  has  observed  in  the  whole  history  of  Christianity,  that 
such  persons,  although  they  have  sometimes  been  in  error  upon 
other  points,  are  yet  preserved  and  brought  back  again  at  length 
to  the  right  path ;  for  all  other  articles  find  their  proper  places 
for  him  who  holds  firmly  to  the  chief  article  of  Christ.  The 
light  of  this  central  truth  dissipates  the  clouds  resting  upon  the 
others.  Yet  he  again  charges  that  the  Sacramentarians,  though 
they  err  only  upon  the  one  point,  destroy  thereby  the  whole 
truth,  or  the  self-consistent  ring.  There  is  here  no  real  contra- 
diction ;  for  the  very  fact  that  the  latter  persist  in  their  error, 
which  must  yet  in  the  end  vanish  before  a  real  faith  in  the  chief 
article,  appeared  to  him  to  be  evidence  enough  that  they  did  not 
in  their  hearts  entertain  a  real  regard  for  that  article  itself.  The 
question  may,  indeed,  then  be  asked  :  Has  every  separate  article 
of  faith,  without  any  discrimination,  where  the  Word  of  God  has 
been  fully  presented,  really,  by  virtue  of  its  connection  with  the 
chief  article,  such  importance  that  an  error  in  regard  to  it  will 
prevent  the  salvation  of  those  who  persist  in  it  until  the  end  of 
life,  since  it  will  be  thereby  evident  that  they  did  not  firmly 
enough   believe    in    the    chief   article?     Luther   maintains    this 

1  Op.  Ex.,  i,  245. 


272  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

expressly  in  the  case  of  Sacramentarians  who  stubbornly  persist 
in  their  opposition  to  the  truth.  That  he  did  not  mean,  however, 
to  make  such  an  assertion  in  regard  to  every  error,  and  without 
any  regard  for  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  cherished,  is 
clear  from  his  declarations  in  regard  to  true  Christians  yet 
remaining  under  the  darkness  of  the  Papacy.  Even  such  must, 
indeed,  be  set  right  upon  the  chief  article,  though  it  be  only  upon 
their  death-beds,  if  they  are  to  attain  salvation.  They  must 
there,  at  least,  depend  simply  and  alone  upon  Christ  and  His 
grace,  as  God  snatched  St.  Bernhard  and  many  others  at  the  last 
moment,  as  it  were,  out  of  the  fire.  But  Luther  can  here  evi- 
dently not  mean  to  maintain  that  the  true  light  has  dawned  upon 
the  minds  of  such  and  been  accepted  by  them  in  regard,  like- 
wise, to  all  the  other  articles  which  they  had  before  refused  to 
acknowledge.  We  recall,  also,  that  he  had  always  tolerated 
among  the  Bohemian  Brethren  those  who  were  weak,  even  in 
regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  without  making 
their  salvation  dependent  upon  the  final  abandonment  of  their 
prejudices  upon  that  point. 

There  yet  remains  to  be  discussed  the  latter  portion  of  the 
question  above  proposed,  namely  :  Whether,  and  in  hotu  far,  all 
the  articles  of  faith  (even  admitting  that  not  every  deviation  of 
the  individual  believer  from  these  must  prove  fatally  destructive) 
must  he  made  by  the  Church,  as  such,  a  portion  of  her  teaching 
and  confession.  Luther  has  evidently  no  other  idea  than  that 
every  congregation,  or  church,  which  desires  to  be  faithful  to  its 
duty  must  publicly  and  decidedly  confess  all  the  truth  which  we 
have  found  him  presenting  in  his  doctrinal  writings  or  defending 
against  its  assailants — and  that  they  must  do  this  in  view  of  the 
thoroughly  scriptural  character  of  the  positions  thus  maintained 
and  their  intimate  connection  with  the  central  point  of  Christian 
faith.  He  evidently  regarded  it  as  his  unquestionable  calling  to 
labor  with  all  his  power  to  induce  the  Church,  with  whose  guid- 
ance he  was  in  part  entrusted,  to  make  such  full  and  open  con- 
fession. He  declares  that,  if  he  only  sees  that  others  preach 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour,  he  is  at  one  with  them, 
and  regards  them  as  his  dear  brethren  in  Christ — as  such  preach- 
ing has  continued  even  under  the  Papacy,  despite  the  many  errors 
which  have  crept  in  with  it.  He  thus  recognized  also  as  brethren, 
or  members  of  the  Universal  Church  of  Christ,  those  upon  whom 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  273 

the  light  has,  indeed,  shone,  but  in  whom  it  has  not  as  yet  driven 
away  all  the  clouds  of  error.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  from 
this  that  he  would  under  any  circumstances  have  prepared,  in  the 
name  and  at  the  request  of  any  definite  body  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, or  any  church  in  this  sense  of  the  word,  any  confession 
tolerating  such  errors.  We  recall,  on  the  contrary,  the  very- 
strong  expressions  which  he  employed  in  rejecting  union  with 
the  Sacramentarians  :  "  Of  the  doctrine  (which  is  not  ours,  but 
God's)  we  can  remit  not  even  a  jot,  nor  can  we  permit  either 
abatement  or  addition.  It  must  be,  as  it  were,  a  continuous  and 
round  golden  circle.  *  *  *  If  they  (the  opponents)  believed 
the  Word  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  they  would  know  that  one 
word  of  God  is  all  (His  words)  and  all  His  words  are  one ; 
likewise,  one  article  is  all  articles,  and  all  articles  are  one." 
Against  this  position  nothing  can  be  proved  by  the  consideration 
which  he  showed  for  some  who  were  not  in  full  accord  with  so 
important  a  doctrine  as  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for,  although 
he  did,  indeed,  extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  those  who  could 
not  yet  see  their  way  clear  to  accept  the  extreme  refinement  of 
the  doctrine,  the  manducation  by  total  unbelievers,  he  yet,  in  the 
confession  which  he  was  then  called  upon  to  prepare  for  the 
Church,  i.  e.,  the  Smakald  Articles,  endeavored,  without  any 
regard  whatever  for  such,  to  confess  the  full  round  truth.'  Such, 
then,  is  the  position  of  Luther,  as  indicated  by  his  own  writings, 
upon  the  question  of  the  distinction  between  fundamental  and 
non-fundamental  doctrines. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  258  ;  1,  29,   13 ;  xxxi,  340.     Jena,  iii,  l8l  b  ;  cf.  Vol.  L,  p. 
505.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,ii,  334  sqq. 
18 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    GOD. 

The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  required  the  somewhat 
extended  examination  of  the  general  view  of  Luther  in  regard  to 
it,  as  well  as  the  discussion  of  a  number  of  special  questions. 
We  had  there  to  do  with  views  and  doctrines  in  which  Luther 
proclaims  and  develops  a  new,  highly  significant  and  productive 
principle,  which  not  alone  stands  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
pre-reformation  theology,  but  whose  free  and  positive  application 
is  characteristic  of  his  teaching  as  contrasted,  also,  with  the  later 
orthodoxy  which  bore  his  name.  The  historical  review  of  the 
Reformer's  writings,  to  which  the  earlier  portions  of  the  present 
work  were  devoted,  had  brought  the  general  principle  in  question 
into  distinct  view,  but  had  given  no  opportunity  for  the  treatment 
of  a  number  of  the  important  separate  points. 

In  the  following  pages,  on  the  contrary,  we  shall  be  compelled 
to  pass  rapidly  over  many  subjects  which  in  a  complete  system  of 
theology  would  demand  more  extended  treatment.  These  will 
be  found  to  be,  in  part,  subjects  in  the  treatment  of  which  Luther 
adopts  largely  the  traditional  formulas,  having  found  no  occasion 
to  recast  them  in  the  light  of  the  newly-fixed  central  point  of 
saving  doctrine.  Among  such  subjects  may  be  mentioned  the 
Trinity,  Angels,  Creation,  etc.  They  are  in  part,  also,  doctrinal 
points  and  questions  in  regard  to  which  the  peculiarity  of 
Luther's  position  lay  precisely  in  his  refusal  to  enter  upon  their 
consideration  in  such  a  way  as  may  be  appropriate  in  a  dogmatic 
system.  This,  again,  is  susceptible  of  various  ex])lanations. 
Thus,  for  example,  we  find  among  the  very  frequent  references 
of  the  Reformer  to  the  divine  attributes,  some  of  which  throw  a 
new  and  thoroughly  characteristic  light  upon  this  important  sub- 
ject, no  atempt  anywhere  to  classify,  or  group,  the  separate 
attributes  with  precision.  The  reason  of  this  is,  as  intimated, 
a  lack  of  interest  in  formal  and   systematic  arrangement.     In 

(  274  ) 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  275 

Other  cases,  as,  indeed,  in  the  general  outUne  of  Christian  and 
theological  truth,  we  must  seek  the  explanation,  to  some  extent, 
in  the  fact  that  eschatological  questions  received  comparatively 
little  attention  in  that  period.  The  most  important  doctrines, 
finally,  which  we  must  here  consider  in  their  mutual  relations 
have  already,  for  the  most  part,  been  so  fully  examined,  even  in 
their  minuter  details,  in  our  historical  survey  of  the  theological 
development  of  Luther  and  of  his  struggles  with  opponents,  that 
we  shall  very  frequently  be  able  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of 
our  present  undertaking  by  simply  referring  to  what  has  been 
already  presented. 

I.  Nature  and  Attributes. 

GOD  HIDDEN  AND  REVEALED OMNIPOTENCE OMNIPRESENCE ETER- 
NITY  OMNISCIENCE DECREES ZEAL  AGAINST  SIN LQVE INCOM- 
PREHENSIBILITY— COMMANDMENTS JUDGMENTS SECRET   WILL 

ABSOLUTE    DECREE    INSCRUTABLE EMPHASIS    UPON    THE    REVEALED 

GOD. 

Of  a  pi'iori,  or  purely  intellectual,  speculations  concerning  the 
Nature  of  God,  or  of  attempts  to  define  what  God  is  in  and  of 
Himself,  without  regard  to  His  relation  to  the  world  and  to  our- 
selves, Luther  would  hear  nothing.  He  is  always  concerned  to 
know  how  God  presents  Himself  to  our  apprehension  in  His 
divine  activity  and  self-revelation.  Even  the  declarations  made 
by  God  concerning  Himself  in  the  Scriptures  were  declarations 
concerning  Himself  as  acting  upon  the  world  and  the  human  race 
and  offering  Himself  to  them.  On  the  other  hand,  he  never  for 
a  moment  doubts  that,  so  far  as  God  permits  us  to  apprehend 
Himself,  we  have  real  revelations  of  the  divine  Being  and  His 
essential  nature — that  the  conceptions  and  apprehensions  which 
we  thus  obtain,  with  all  their  possible  imperfection,  are  yet  by  no 
means  merely  matters  of  subjective  consciousness  :  for  it  is  the 
purpose  of  God  to  reveal  Himself,  and  He  is  truthful  and  trust- 
worthy. The  only  question  is,  where  it  may  please  God  to  allow 
Himself  to  be  actually  and  truly  found  by  us  sinful  men  as  our  God. 
This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  possible  in  the  general  revelations  of 
nature,  but  only  in  that  of  the  divine  Word  contained  in  the  Bible. 

There  are,  however,  two  distinct  features  in  the  inner  appre- 
hension of  God,  and  the  contemplation  of  His  being  and  character, 


276  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

which  are  found  in  Luther  side  by  side,  or  in  contrast  with  one 
another.     We  became  famiUar  with  them  both  when  reviewing 
the  writings  of  Luther  dating  from  the  pre-reformation  period. 
In  studying  the  relation  which  these  two  conceptions  bear  to  one 
another  in  the  maturity  of  his  theological  views,  we  shall  discover 
the  peculiar  content  and  character  of  his  doctrine  concerning  God. 
We  have  seen,  upon  the  one  hand,  that  the  sense  of  the  divine 
power  and  majesty,  which  is  a  fundamental  element  in  all  religious 
character,  was  peculiarly  vivid  in  the  case  of  Luther.     With  the 
consciousness  of  the  sinner,  to  whom  salvation  can  come  only 
from  above,  and  who  must  be  nothing  more  than  material  for  the 
divine  remoulding  energy,  was  combined,  in  him,  also  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  creature  as  such,  which  feels  itself  to  be  as  bare 
matter  in  the  hand  of  the  all-governing  Creator,  as  nothing  in 
the  presence  of  the  supreme  Existence.     In  producing  this  state 
of  mind  we  recognize,  along  with  the  influence  of  Augustinianism, 
in  a  very  marked  degree  also  that  of  Mysticism.     In  the  conflict 
with  the  Pelagianism  of  the  Romish  theology,  Luther  went  to  the 
greatest  extreme  in  this  direction  in  the  propositions  laid  down 
m  his  publication  against  Erasmus.     All  things,  according  to  his 
theory,  come   to  pass  with   absolute  necessity  by  virtue  of  the 
universal  agency  i^AIhvirksatukeit)    of    the  divine  power.     This 
necessity  is  an  inevitable  inference  from  the  divine  foreknowledge. 
It  applies  to  evil  as  well  as  to  good — and  not  only  to  the  develop- 
ment of  evil  since  its  intrusion  among  men,  but  also  to  its  original 
entrance  to  the  world.     The  recognition  of  this  fact  cannot  be 
avoided  by  any  appeal  to  the  moral  nature  of  God,  to  His  good- 
ness, or  even  to  His   righteousness ;  for  the  absoluteness  which 
characterizes   the  nature  of  God  belongs  likewise  to  His  will  so 
distinctly  that  we  cannot  lay  down  laws  for  Him,  but  must  accept 
as  right  whatever   He  wills,  just  because  He  wills  it.     His  will 
itself,  moreover,  belongs  to  His  nature,  is  His  very  nature — and 
is  therefore  unchangeable. 

That  God  is  essentially  good  is  established  by  Luther,  already 
in  the  Firs/  Exposition  of  the  Psalms,  by  appealing  to  His 
mercv  shown  in  preparing  salvation  for  the  sinful.  But  he 
deduces  it  also  from  that  righteousness  which  is  displayed  in 
dealing  with  those  who  are  given  over  to  destruction.'     Righteous- 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  2']^ 

ness,  says  he,  is  God  Himself.  God  is  the  supreme  Good.  Hence, 
even  hell  is  full  of  God  and  of  the  supreme  Good.  In  his  pam- 
phlet against  Erasmus,  he  deduces  it  also  from  that  universal 
divine  agency  by  which  God  moves  the  will  of  the  ungodly. 
God,  says  he,  would  cease  to  be  God,  or  good,  if  He  should  cease 
to  act  upon  the  wicked.  God  is  hence  good,  not  only  when  He 
in  His  righteousness  condemns  the  wicked  to  perdition,  but  even 
— what  seems  to  reason  cruel  and  unrighteous — when  He,  by  His 
own  influence  upon  them,  hardens  them,  and  punishes  them  for 
their  hardened  condition.  This  absolute  agency,  by  which  God 
works  life  and  death,  and  all  in  all,  purely  according  to  His  own 
will,  does  not,  indeed,  according  to  Luther,  belong  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  revelation  which  God  has  given  of  Himself.  In  con- 
sidering it,  and  in  the  question,  how  the  revealed  announcement, 
that  God  does  not  desire  the  death  of  the  sinner,  can  be  harmo- 
nized with  it,  we  have  to  do  with  God  as  hidden,  and  not  preached, 
into  whose  being  no  human  speculations  can  penetrate.  But 
it  is  just  this  "  unpreached  God  "  who,  as  Luther  says,  "  is  God 
in  His  own  nature  and  majesty^  ' 

While  thus  recalling  such  expressions  of  Luther  as  the  above, 
we  must,  however,  bear  in  mind  that  they  occur  only  in  occa- 
sional publications,  or  in  passages  scattered  through  his  writings,  in 
the  great  mass  of  which  far  more  stress  is  laid  upon  the  simple 
and  practical  attempt  to  rebuke  the  claims  to  merit  of  his  own 
upon  the  part  of  the  unrepentant  sinner,  and  to  console  the  con- 
trite sinner  by  the  proclamation  of  the  forgiving  grace  and  hve  of 
God.  This  is  the  testimony  concerning  the  ^^ preached  God.'^ 
Even  in  the  earlier  years,  to  which  the  above  citations  are  to  be 
traced,  the  incarnate  a^id  crucified  Son  of  C^^  stands  out  clearly 
as  the  great  central  point,  in  which  we  are  to  seek  for  all  our 
knowledge  of  God.  To  start  with  the  humanity  of  Christ,  through 
which  the  mercy  of  God  is  revealed  to  us,  and  to  mount  through 
it  to  the  invisible  Father,  who  has  through  it  done  such  great 
things  for  us,  is  then  already  declared  by  Luther  to  be  the  single 
and  only  way  to  the  knowledge  of  God."  To  this  course  he 
points  persons  distressed  upon  the  subject  of  predestination,^  and 
in  his  tract,  De  servo  arbitrio,  he  hastens  to  this  from  the  con- 

»  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  491  sq.  '  Thus  in  Briefe,  ii,  226. 

3  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  332. 


278  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

sideration  of  the  hidden  will  of  God.  In  Christ,  he  declares,  we 
see  right  clearly  the  true  name  of  God — how  good  and  kind,  etc., 
He  is.  This  is  the  true  Cabala  of  the  name  of  the  Lord,  not 
the  fabled  Cabala  of  the  superstitious  Jews  framed  upon  the 
Tetragrainma  (mn*)-'  The  quickening,  inspiring  activity  which 
God  seeks  to  manifest  through  His  Son,  the  Redeemer,  is  attrib- 
uted to  His  fundamental  character  and  nature ;  whereas  the 
"  killing  "  influence,  which  also  proceeds  from  Him,  is  defined  as 
"  God's  strange  work,"  in  contrast  with  the  former  as  His  "  own 
work."^ 

This  feature  of  the  doctrine  concerning  God,  the  testimony  to 
His  compassionate  love  in  Christ,  held  thus,  from  the  beginning, 
the  place  of  prominence  in  Luther's  teaching.  Even  the  procla- 
mation of  the  righteousness  of  God  and  His  wrath  against  sin  was 
but  designed  to  prepare  the  way  for  "  His  own  work."  It  is  to 
prepare  man  for  the  reception  of  the  "  righteousness  of  God,"  in 
the  passive  sense  of  the  term,  in  which  man  is  justified  by  the 
God  of  grace.^  We  find  at  a  very  early  date  the  declaration,  that 
God  hates  wrath,  namely,  death.*  Even  the  usual  utterances  of 
Luther  in  regard  to  the  power  of  God  have  no  other  aim  ;  if  man 
is  urged  to  renounce  all  claim  to  worthiness  of  his  own  in  the 
presence  of  the  almighty  Creator,  it  is  that  he  may  rejoice  in  the 
all-efficacious  grace  of  the  same  supreme  Ruler.  Yet,  back  of 
this  idea,  which  finds  utterance  in  the  joyous  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  there  remains,  forming  a  dark  background  to  the  picture, 
from  which  the  eye  instinctively  turns  with  dread,  the  unpreached, 
hidden  God,  whose  nature  appears  as  only  power  and  omnipo- 
tence of  will,  and  who,  even  when  proclaiming  life  through  His 
appointed  messengers,  has  yet,  in  His  hidden  will,  decreed  death, 
and  is  capable  of  casting  by  His  power  into  unavoidable  destruc- 
tion. Luther,  in  such  connections,  speaks  as  though,  in  fact,  the 
making  alive  and  the  killing  belonged  equally  to  this  God  as  His 
own  peculiar  work.  It  would,  accordingly,  be  only  in  the 
preaching  for  which  God  has  given  commandment,  that  he  would 
make  the  former  appear  as  "  His  own  work."  Is  it  possible  for 
One  consciousness.  One  faith,  to  thus  maintain  these  two  con- 
ceptions side  by  side? 

Yet  we  find  them  in  the  later  writings  of  Luther  still  standing 

'  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  221.  2  cf_  Vol.  I.,  pp.  143,  189,  257. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  72.  *Ibid.,  p.  103. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  279 

as  distinctly  opposed  to  one  another  as  ever,  with  no  solution  of 
the  difficulties  involved  in  the  question  of  their  mutual  relations. 
Luther  even  himself  warns  against  every  attempt  to  fathom  the 
mysteries  which  enshroud  the  subject.  Nevertheless,  we  dare 
not  overlook  the  fact,  that  the  position  of  these  two  conceptions 
of  the  divine  character  was  relatively  changed — not  alone  in  the 
public  utterances  of  Luther,  but  in  his  own  inner  apprehension  as 
well — in  a  remarkable  and  significant,  although  by  no  means 
clearly  and  sharply  defined,  way.  The  citations  above  adduced 
all  date  from  the  period  ending  with  the  close  of  the  year  1525.' 
In  the  quotations  to  follow,  we  shall  avail  ourselves  of  the  entire 
remaining  portion  of  the  Reformer's  life. 

We  note,  first,  the  development,  in  its  final  form,  of  the  doc- 
trine of  God  as  a  "preached,  revealed  God."  We  gain  here,  if 
confining  our  attention  strictly  to  deliverances  directly  bearing 
upon  this  idea,  a  comprehensive  doctrine  of  the  divine  attributes, 
and,  apparently  at  least,  of  the  divine  nature,  in  which  the  funda- 
mental elements  appear  to  stand  out  in  the  clearest  light.  Yet 
we  must,  after  all,  still  inquire  whether  the  representations  here 
made  can  hold  their  place  as  against  the  other  aspect  of  the  sub- 
ject as  still  maintained  by  the  Reformer — whether,  in  view  of  the 
latter  also,  these  definitions  dare  be  retained  as  true  definitions 
of  the  divine  nature. 

It  is,  according  to  the  class  of  passages  now  under  review,  in 
the  revelation  of  Himself — in  the  Scriptures,  in  Christ — that  we 
are  to  learn  to  know  God. 

From  the  Scriptures  themselves,  i.  e.,  from  the  name  Jehovah, 
Luther  in  one  passage  derives  the  description  of  God  as  Nature 
itself,  or  the  simply  existing  One  {der  scJilechthin  Seiende).  He 
derives  the  name  "  from  the  word.Hajo,  or  Havo,"  equivalent  to 
"  nature,"  or  "  being,"  in  which  the  yod  is  the  sign  of  a  verbal 
noun.  We  might,  he  says,  substitute  for  this  Tetragrammaton 
the  German  Trigrammaton,  "  ist."  God  is,  from  all  eternity,  in 
and  of  Himself,  without  beginning  and  without  end.  It  is  with 
him  simply  "1st,"  or  Being  (  Wesen)  f  and  this  "1st,''  or  Being, 
is  incomprehensible  and  unutterable.     It  was  perhaps  in    this 

•Cf.  Vol.  I.,p.498sq. 

"  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxii,  304  sqq.;  cf.  Jena,  i,  573  b.  Luther  had  himself  at  an 
earlier  day  (Op.  Ex.,  xiv.  276  sq.)  explained  the  name  Jehovah  with  an  art- 
ful interpretation  of  the  separate  letters. 


2  8o  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

sense  that  the  ancients  spoke  of  the  unutterableness  of  the  name 
Jehovah,  of  which  idea  the  Jews  of  the  present  day  make  such  a 
perverse  use.  It  might  thus  appear  as  though  we  had,  in  this 
very  exalted,  although  at  the  same  time  abstract,  designation, 
been  led  right  up  to  a  view  of  the  hidden  God.  But  Luther  pro- 
ceeds at  once  to  give  the  caution  :  "  This  Jehovah,  /.  e.,  divine 
Being  "  ( \Vese?i),  we  are  now  to  recognize  and  to  seek  precisely 
in  the  Scriptures,  as  He  has  there  revealed  Himself  through  His 
Word. 

This  warning  is  repeated  again  and  again  by  Luther  in  various 
connections.  The  Godhead  is  defined,  in  contradistinction  from 
God  revealing  Himself  to  us  in  His  Word,  as  the  "  naked  God- 
head " — the  absolute  God — God  in  the  predication  of  His  essence 
i^Deus  in  praedicamento  siibsta7itiae') — God  in  His  majesty.  As 
such,  He  does  not  permit  us  to  find  or  comprehend  Him.  The 
infinite  God  is  for  us  a  "  Dcus  vagus  " — unfixed,  or  indefinite.  In 
this  sense,  it  is  said  that  God  dwells  in  a  light  which  is  for  us 
unapproachable  (i  Tim.  vi.  i6).  Yea,  for  us  this  God  in  His 
majesty  is  a  consuming  fire  (Heb.  xii.  29).  We  are  to  seek  Him 
as  invested  and  clothed  {vestitus  et  indutus')  in  His  Word — God 
in  the  predication  of  relation  {praedicamento  relationis) — God 
as  He  has  concealed  His  majesty  most  profoundly  in  His  incar- 
nate Son,  who  sucks  the  breasts  of  Mary  and  hangs  upon  the 
cross.  Here,  moreover,  He  is  to  be  actually  found.  The  Son 
represents  to  us  the  Father's  heart  and  will.  Where  the  God, 
Christ  Jesus,  is,  there  is  the  entire  God,  or  Godhead ;  there  is 
also  found  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  incarnate  Son 
is  as  a  veil,  or  envelope  {Hi/lie),  in  which  the  divine  majesty 
presents  itself  to  us  with  all  its  gifts.  In  this  connection  Luther 
mentions,  along  with  the  Word,  as  bringing  to  us  this  God  in 
Christ,  particularly  also  baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper  and  absolution.' 

What  importance  attaches  to  this  One  way  to-  God  and  to  the 
knowledge  of  God,  Luther  had  originally  learned  amid  the  inner 
conflicts  into  which  he  had  been  led  by  dwelling  upon  his  own 
ideas  of  God.  His  feeling  in  the  matter  was  intensified  in  his 
conflict  with  the  fanatical  sects,  who  sought  in  their  own  way  to 
scale  the  walls  of  heaven  with  their  speculations. 

>0p.  Ex.,  ii,  174;  iv,  loi  sq.,  122;  xix,  22,  76;  xx,  177  sqq.,  180.  Erl. 
Ed.,  xlvii,  145,  192  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  28 1 

He  was  constantly  presenting  such  warnings,  especially  to  per- 
sons who  brooded  anxiously  over  the  uncertainty  whether  the  will 
of  God  were  favorable  to  themselves  or  otherwise.  He  pointed 
such  to  the  Word  of  the  self-revealing  God,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a 
Word  of  promise  and  grace.  But  he  presents  also  the  Command- 
ments, in  which  God  manifests  His  will  touching  our  moral  life 
in  the  outward  world,  to  such  readers  as  were  in  danger  of  suffer- 
ing their  thoughts,  in  this  direction  also,  to  be  diverted  to  the 
hidden  God.  He  recognizes  a  fanaticism  and  fatalism  which 
declares  :  We  need  not  make  provision  for  our  bodies  or  our 
life — we  need  no  books,  etc. ;  since,  if  God  has  but  so  deter- 
mined, we  shall  without  thus  troubling  ourselves  live  on,  become 
learned,  etc.  Against  this,  he  teaches  that  it  is  our  duty,  with- 
out brooding  over  the  hidden  things  of  the  divine  government,  to 
use  the  means  appointed  by  God  in  accordance  with  His  revealed 
will,  and  to  pursue  the  calling  assigned  by  Him.  By  acting 
otherwise,  we  commit  the  grievous  sin  of  tempting  God.' 

What  are,  then,  the  fundamental  attributes  which  we  discover 
when  we  contemplate  this  self-revealing  God? 

The  attribute  of  omnipotence  retains,  even  when  viewed  from 
the  standpoint  of  revelation,  a  fundamental  significance.  We 
have  already  ^  found  Luther  designating  the  article  upon  God,  the 
almighty  Creator,  the  highest  article  of  faith.  And  he  still,  in 
view  of  the  divine  universal  agency  as  contrasted  with  the  power 
of  the  creature  (and  therefore  not  merely  in  view  of  the  relation 
of  human  sinfulness  and  the  free  grace  of  God),  so  decidedly 
rejects  the  idea  of  a  free  human  will,  that  he  again,  as  at  an 
earlier  period,^  applies  to  our  relation  to  the  Creator  the  figure  of 
a  saw  in  the  hand  of  a  carpenter  (following  Isa.  x.  is).*  We 
can,  says  he,  do  neither  anything  truly  good  nor  anything  evil, 
just  as  the  work  of  the  saw  is  not  its  own,  but  that  of  the  man 
who  handles  it.  But  the  questions  which  are  inseparably  con- 
nected with  this  position  would  lead  us  to  the  discussion  of  the 
secret  counsels  of  God,  and  must,  therefore,  be  deferred  for  the 
present.  We  may,  however,  remark  in  passing  that  extreme 
statements  respecting  the  universal  agency  {Alhmrksamkcif)  of 
God,  such  as  are  found  only  in  occasional  passages  in  the  earlier 

1  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  196;  X,  224  sq.;   cf.  also  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  330. 

2  Supra,  p.  214.         ■''Vol.  I.,  p.  326.         *0p.  Ex.,  xxii,  117  sq. 


2S2  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

periods,  but,  when  so  found,  carried  out  witli  great  emphasis, 
can  scarcely  be  discovered  by  diHgent  searching  among  the  entire 
mass  of  the  later  writings  of  the  Reformer, 

The  conception  of  omnipresence  is  found  in  very  intimate 
association  with  that  of  omnipotence.  As  the  universal  agent, 
God  must  be  omnipresent.  This  omnipresence  is  at  the  same 
time  a  genuine  presence  of  God  Himself.  His  essential  nature 
{Wesen),  His  spirit,  etc.,  are  everywhere  present  with  His  power, 
and  in  sucli  a  way  that  He  penetrates  and  controls  all  things, 
even  to  their  minutest  parts.  Yet  it  is  a  presence  that  is  far 
different  from  that  of  any  created  being — a  presence  in  which 
He  is  just  as  far  exalted  above  all  things  as  He  is  truly  present  in 
them.  This  idea  was  developed  with  special  fulness  in  the 
above-cited  utterances  against  Zwingli.  He  there  presents  his 
view  of  the  supreme  and  spiritual  mode  of  existence  as  contrasted 
with  the  finite  and  sensible.  God  is  thus  rcpletivcly  present. 
Even  when  an  existence  in  heaven  is  attributed  to  Him,  this  is 
not  to  be  conceived  of  as  a  local  presence.  God  is  thus  present 
also  even  in  the  midst  of  hell.  From  this  divine  presence  Luther 
then  discriminates  that  in  which  we  recognize  Him  as  God, 
where  we  have  His  Word,  faith  and  Spirit,  where  His  people  are, 
who  alone  realize  that  He  is  such  a  God.  The  former  he  desig- 
nates the  natural,  the  latter  the  spiritual  presence  of  God.' 

The  very  name  Jehovah  expresses,  in  Luther's  view,  the  eter- 
nity of  God,  in  direct  unity  with  His  aseity  (independence)  and 
immutability.  God  possesses  a  nature  by  virtue  of  which  He  is 
before  and  beyond  time,  and  by  virtue  of  which  everything  that 
we  see  transpiring  consecutively  in  time  is  always  equally  near 
for  him — stands  before  His  view  in  one  moment,  is  compre- 
hended by  Him  at  a  single  glance.  Thus  all  things  are  for  Him 
present,  without  any  before  or  after,  just  because  He  exists  simply 
without  calculation,  of  time  {si?}ipliciter  extra  temporis  ratiojieni). 
Luther  postulates  a  beginning  for  time  itself,  declaring  that 
before  the  beginning  (Gen.  i.  i)  there  was  nothing — neither 
days  nor  time.  But  yet,  says  he,  God  then  existed.  For  us 
creatures  of  the  earth,  indeed,  for  whom  all  things  move  forward 
step  by  step,  this  eternal  divine  life  is  inconceivable.  This  eternal 
existence  of  God  is  regarded  as  involving  also  His  omnipotence 

'  Supra,  p.  1 16  sq.;  139  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xli,  340. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  283 

as  against  all  existence  outside  of  Himself  (which,  like  time  itself, 
can  have  derived  its  being  only  from  Him)  and  His  perfect  self- 
sufficiency.  Luther  even  declares  in  one  place  that  it  embraces 
all  the  attributes  of  God,  His  omnipotence,  blessedness,  wisdom, 
etc.,  since  God  never  received  anything  from  any  one  (cf.  Rom. 

xi.  35)-' 

That  this  eternal,  omnipotent  God,  who  is  above  all  things  as 
He  is  in  all  things,  is  also  eternally  conscious  of  His  own  exist- 
ence and  movements,  and  present  everywhere  also  as  AU-knotvijjg, 
or  OMNISCIENT,  are  propositions  which  Luther  never  had  occasion 
to  make  the  subject  of  special  discussion.  His  chief  utterances 
referring  specifically  to  the  divine  knowledge  of  future  events  are 
connected  with  and  involved  in  his  declarations  concerning  the 
eternity  of  God.  He  here  expressly  includes  also  the  deeds  of 
the  human  will.  Even  the  evil  deeds  of  men  were  seen  of  God 
from  all  eternity.  It  is  conceded,  accordingly,  that  He  also 
knew  from  all  eternity  who  should  and  shall  be  saved. 

With  this  foreknowledge  was  most  intimately  connected,  in 
Luther's  conception,  the  immutability  of  the  divine  decrees. 
God  can  never  have  regretted  anything  which  He  had  done, 
because  not  observing  until  afterward  to  what  it  would  lead. 
"  God  is  from  eternity  fixed  {firnws)  in  His  counsel  {consilio)  ; 
He  sees  and  knows  all  things."  '^  If  we  now  inquire  in  what  rela- 
tion the  promises  of  salvation  to  all  sinners,  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  fruitlessness  of  the  latter  in  the  cases  of  so 
many  persons  stand  to  this  foreknowledge  and  these  eternal 
decrees,  we  are  thereby  brought  again,  as  in  the  questions  touch- 
ing the  universal  divine  agency,  face  to  face  with  the  mystery  of 
the  hidden  God. 

But  as  in  the  earlier  period,  so  also  in  his  later  writings,  Luther 
sought  in  preaching  to  bear  testimony  with  very  special  fulness 
and  emphasis  to  the  Ethical  Attributes  of  God,  and  to  these, 
particularly,  as  ministering  to  our  salvation. 

He  always  announces  with  great  earnestness  the  holy  zeal  of 
God  against  sin.  In  this  light,  particularly,  he  regards  the 
declaration  that  God  is  a  consuming  fire.  With  His  will  there  is 
combined  the  most  vigorous  and  violent  power.     God,  therefore, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  29  sq.,  66,  157;  li,  459.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  95;  xviii,  281  sq. 
'^  Briefe,  iii,  354  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  ii,   168  sq. 


2S4  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

both  can  and  will  punish.  This  is  essentially  the  same  idea,  to 
Luther's  mind,  as  that  conveyed  by  the  term  Righteousness,  when 
the  latter  is  used  to  designate  the  divine  attribute,  "  by  virtue 
of  which  God  is  Himself  righteous  and  punishes  the  wicked." 
Luther,  indeed,  still,  as  in  his  earlier  writings,^  declares  that, 
when  the  "  righteous  "  God  is  proclaimed  in  the  Scriptures,  we 
are  to  think  rather  of  the  God  who. makes  us  righteous  by  show- 
ing compassion  toward  the  sinful ;  that  "  righteous  "  in  scriptural 
language  means  properly  "  pious  "  ;  and  that  the  strict  righteous- 
ness of  God  is  called  by  the  Scriptures  "  zeal,  justice,  or  integrity  " 
{Ernst,  Gericht,  Richfigkeit).  But  he  not  only  thus,  in  fact, 
acknowledges  the  existence  of  this  strict  righteousness,  but  he 
himself  still  repeatedly  employs  the  term  "  righteousness  "  itself 
in  this  sense.  Moreover,  as  this  involves  the  punishment  of  sin, 
it  carries  with  it  also,  in  Luther's  conception,  the  regard  of  God 
for  the  commandments  with  whose  violation  this  attribute  has 
to  do.  God  is  righteous,  because  He  insists  upon  that  which  is 
right  in  His  sight.  Thus  God  is,  for  him,  "  The  eternal  Right- 
eousness and  Purity  {Kiarheif),  who  by  His  very  nature  {aus 
seiner  Art)  hates  sin."  '^  That  this  is  the  essential  nature  of  the 
divine  righteousness  becomes  particularly  manifest,  in  the  utter- 
ances of  Luther  in  relation  to  the  establishment  of  the  divine 
work  of  redemption  through  Christ.  Thus,  in  the  very  passage 
above  cited,  he  declares  that  Christ  took  upon  Himself  this  very 
wrath  of  God  against  sin,  and  transformed  the  wrathful  Judge 
into  a  merciful  God.  Satisfaction  has  been  rendered,  he  declares, 
to  the  divine  righteousness  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  It  was 
necessary  that  death,  etc.,  should  be  vanquished  hy  justice.  He 
finds  satisfaction  thus  rendered,  none  the  less,  also  by  Christ's 
perfect  obedience  to  the  divine  commandments.  Thus  God 
would  "  have  His  honor  and  justice  recompensed."  Thus,  it  is 
only  after  satisfaction  has  been  rendered  to  righteousness,  that 
"  mercy  and  grace  [have]  room  to  work  upon  us  and  in  us."  * 

But  while  Luther  thus  bears  faithful  testimony  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  he  has  far  more  to  say  of  the  divine  love. 

He  inferred  from   the  name  Jehovah,  as  we  have  seen,  that 

1  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  72. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  xiv,  207;  xix,  24.     Erl.  Ed.,  x,  17;  xii,  172. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  x,  449  sqq. ;  vii,  175  sqq. ,   299  sq.  ;  xv,  385. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  285 

God  is  essentially  simply  is,  or  being.  Yet  he  would  not  have  us 
rest  satisfied  with  this,  but  we  should  learn  from  the  Scriptures 
more  definitely  what  is  contained  in  this  being.  And  what  do 
we  thus  find  God  to  be?  Luther  answers  :  "  A  God  exists  from 
whom  we  are  to  expect  everything  good,  and  to  whom  we  may 
take  refuge  in  every  hour  of  need."  He  regards,  as  an  appro- 
priate name  for  this  God,  the  German  name  "Ct^//,"  deriving  it 
from  "  good,"  and  he  thinks  God  is  called  good,  "  as  an  eternal 
fountain  which  overflows  with  pure  goodness,  and  from  which 
proceeds  everything  that  is,  or  is  called,  good."  '  Luther  means 
to  express  the  same  thought  when  he,  with  John,  declares  that 
God  is  love.  Love,  says  he,  is  rightly  denominated  the  most 
precious,  most  perfect  virtue  in  God  and  man.  All  that  philoso- 
phers have  ever  said  of  it  is  as  nothing  compared  with  that  which 
John  pours  out  from  a  full  heart,  when  he  says  :  "  God  is  love 
itself,  and  His  nature  is  pure  love  "  ;  yea,  the  divine  nature  is 
nothing  but  an  oven  and  glow  of  such  love,  filling  heaven  and 
earth.  Nor  does  he  so  speak  of  the  wrath  of  God  against  fallen 
humanity  as  though  the  love  of  God  had  ceased  to  be  exercised, 
and  must  be  awakened  again  by  Christ's  work  of  reconciliation. 
On  the  contrary,  he  most  impressively  traces  the  mission  and 
work  of  Christ  to  this  divine  love.  Christ,  he  declares,  could 
not  have  manifested  love  toward  us,  if  God  had  not  in  eternal 
love  so  willed,  and  Christ,  in  His  love  toward  us,  was  but  display- 
ing obedience  to  God.  It  is,  therefore,  our  privilege  now  to 
ascend  through  Christ  to  God's  own  heart.  In  this  love  God 
pours  out,  as  Luther  says,  everything  good — gives  our  bodies  and 
our  life.  His  grace  and  every  blessing.  Yea,  He  pours  out,  in  the 
sphere  of  spiritual  blessings,  not  the  sun  and  moon,  nor  heaven 
and  earth,  but  His  own  heart,  and  his  well-beloved  Son.^ 

Viewed  in  its  relation  to  created  beings,  and  especially  to  the 
sinful,  this  love  is  essentially  the  most  profound  condescension. 
The  infinite  majesty  and  power  of  God  do  not  conflict  at  all  with 
such  love,  but  it  is  just  as  the  supreme  and  omnipotent  Being 
that  God  condescends  to  the  lowliest  and  weakest,  demanding 
only  that  the  creature  acknowledge  its  own  lowliness  and  need 
and  His  majesty  and  compassion.     It  is  the  way  of  God  to  look 

1  Erl,  Ed.,  xxi,  35-37. 

^  Ibid.,  xii,  326;   xix,  366  ;   xii,  25S  ;   xi,  151;   xix,  381,  397,  368. 


2  86  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

downward.  He  cannot  look  up  nor  around  Himself,  since  there 
is  nothing  above  Him  nor  any  being  equal  to  Himself.  He 
therefore  looks  downward,  and  hence  the  deeper  down  any  one 
is,  the  more  clearly  does  God's  eye  rest  upon  him,  "  This  is  the 
title,  and  the  most  appropriate  definition,  of  God  :  The  Respecter 
of  the  despised  and  humble."  This  is  then,  too,  the  glory  of 
our  God,  that  He  for  our  sakes  condescends  most  deeply,  enter- 
ing human  flesh,  the  bread  of  the  sacrament,  our  mouth,  heart 
and  bosom  :  and  we,  accordingly,  properly  glorify  Him,  when  we 
regard  Him  as  the  merciful  God,  our  Father  in  Christ.' 

This  leads  us  to  the  conception  of  the  divine  "  righteousness  " 
which  Luther,  as  we  have  seen,  regarded  as  the  distinctively 
biblical  one.  He  not  only  discriminates  the  conception  of  "  the 
righteousness  of  God  "  ( Gottesgerechtigkeit)  as  a  passive  right- 
eousness with  which  God  endows  us,  and  which,  as  it  proceeds 
from  God,  must  also  be  acceptable  to  Him,'^  from  righteousness 
as  an  attribute  of  God  Himself ;  but  he  sees  an  exhibition  of  the 
latter  in  the  mercy  which  God  shows  towards  us,  in  His  justifying 
of  the  sinner,  and  bestowing  upon  him  "  the  righteousness  of 
God  "  \\\  the  former  sense.  The  unity  in  which  are  combined 
both  features  of  this  divine  attribute,  making  it  possible  for  God 
thus  to  show  mercy  and  yet  hate  sin,  finds  expression,  for  Luther, 
in  the  German  word  "//vww,"  which  he  regards  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  the  scriptural  term  "  righteous  "  {gerecht).^  His  idea  of 
the  meaning  of  this  word  may  be  gathered  from  his  comment 
upon  the  Hebrew  word  D^!D^  (which  he  translates  "/;7v;/;;/ ") 
in  Ps.  xviii.  24  :  "  D^.^H)  ^'l  ^^t  integer,  probatus,  perfectus, 
immaculatus — /.  e.,  frinniii — who  injures  no  one,  does  all  things 
which  he  ought  to  do."  He  thus  translates  also  D'-3p  :  "fronun" 
i.  <?.,  reeti — integri,  perfceti}  We  are  thus  conducted  to  the 
conclusion  that  God  is  righteous,  or  " fromm,^''  because  His  deal- 
ings with  men  are  right — which  means  that  they  are  morally 
perfect — and  that  the  very  compassion  which  He  manifests 
belongs  to  moral  perfection.  The  two  features  of  the  divine 
righteousness  are  further  reconciled,  in  Luther's  view,  by  the  fact, 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  408.  Op.  Ex.,vii,  270.   Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  71  sqq.  Cf.  supra,  p.  209. 
^Cf.  also,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  81.     Jena,  iii,  229  b. 
'  Cf.  also  Op.  Ex.,  xvii,  250;  "  Justus=fromni." 
*0p.  Ex.,  xvi,  103;  X,  146. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  287 

that  God  permits  men  to  enjoy  the  benefits  of  His  mercy  only 
upon  the  ground  of  the  perfect  satisfaction  for  their  sins  rendered 
by  Christ,  and  only  when  they  themselves,  as  believers,  depend 
upon  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  and  thus,  in  their  very  faith, 
assume  and  maintain  a  right  attitude  toward  God.  Touching 
the  last  point,  we  recall  earlier  passages,  especially  from  the  Freiheit 
cines  Christemnenschen.  Righteousness,  says  he,  gives  to  every 
man  what  is  his  due,  and  I  now  give  God  that  which  is  His, 
when  I  believe  upon  Him,  and  account  Him  a  gracious  Father. 
Thus  Abraham,  because  he  believed,  gave  God  the  glory,  or 
that  which  belonged  to  Him.'  We  shall  have  occasion  to  say 
more  of  this  when  treating  of  the  appropriation  of  salvation 
(Chap.  VI.). 

How  far,  it  may  yet  be  asked,  does  this  love  of  God,  which 
pours  forth  such  rich  and  full  streams  of  blessing,  extend? 
Luther  says  of  it :  The  unworthiness  of  no  man,  nor  that  of  all 
men  combined— yea,  not  even  the  richly-merited  eternal  wrath 
and  condemnation — can  be  so  great,  that  the  greatness  of  love 
and  grace,  or  forgiveness,  does  not  overbalance  and  envelop  it  in 
its  height,  depth,  breadth  and  width.  Hence,  this  love,  as 
Luther  most  emphatically  and  without  any  qualification  declares, 
seeks  to  reach  all  individual  men.  Christ  bore  the  sins  of  all 
men,  not  only  of  some.  From  this  very  fact,  that  He  died  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  I,  \v\vo  am  a  part  of  the  world,  may 
most  certainly  infer  that  He  died  also- for  mine.  The  invitations 
and  promises  of  grace  are  addressed  to  all  men ;  they  are  so 
general  in  their  terms  that  no  one  may  count  himself  excluded. 
The  Son  of  God  was  given  for  all  men ;  all  should  believe  on 
Him ;  and  none  so  believing  shall  be  lost.  Let  every  one,  then, 
consider  his  own  case,  and  inquire  whether  he  is  also  a  man,  and 
thus  a  part  of  that  world  which  God  loved  (John  iii.  i6).  It  is 
the  will  of  God  that  all  shall  thus  recognize  their  sins,  believe, 
and  be  saved.  This  will  is  evident  and  certain ;  and  hence,  in 
our  prayers  for  such  heavenly  blessings,  we  do  not  need,  as  in 
our  petitions  for  earthly  good,  to  commit  it  to  the  will  of  God  to 
do  or  not  to  do  as  we  desire ;  but  we  are  to  know  and  beheve 
that  He  will  grant  our  requests  gladly  and  without  any  uncertainty. 
Nor  should  we  suffer  ourselves  to  be  shaken  in  this  confidence  by 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  117.     Comm.  ad  Gal,  i,  328. 


288  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  reflection  that  God  knows  all  things,  and  that  all  the  works 
and  thoughts  of  all  creatures  must  come  to  pass  in  accordance 
with  His  will ;  but  we  should  hold  fast  to  the  truth,  that  it  is 
nevertheless  His  earnest  desire  and  intention — even  command- 
ment— determined  from  eternity,  to  save  all  men,  as  it  is  clearly- 
announced,  in  Ezek.  xviii.  23,  that  God  does  not  desire  to  take 
the  sinner's  life — and  no  sinner  should  abandon  this  assurance 
to  give  himself  up  to  foolish  thoughts  suggested  by  the  devil.^ 
In  these  declarations,  Luther  assumes  a  decidedly  different  atti- 
tude from  that  which  he  had  previously  maintained  toward  the 
question  as  to  the  love  and  loving  will  of  God,  How  could,  for 
example,  in  accordance  with  the  views  now  expressed,  a  "  falling 
below  the  standard  of  the  apostolic  spirit  "  be  found  in  the  utter- 
ance of  2  Pet.  iii.  9?  ^  His  interpretation  of  i  Tim.  ii.  4  :  "  Who 
will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  (Luther:  helped)  and  to  come 
unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,"  ^  belongs,  accordingly,  with 
certainty  to  the  earlier  period  to  which  the  older  editions  ascribe 
it.  It  is  of  peculiar  interest,  as  testifying  how  far  Luther  was  at 
that  earlier  period  from  accepting  the  views  expressed  in  these 
later  utterances.  He  there  still  felt  bound  to  say  of  this  declara- 
tion of  Paul :  The  immediate  subject  is  here  the  help  of  God 
considered  in  the  most  general  way,  particularly  that  peace  and 
peaceful  government  for  which  we  are  to  pray ;  and  we  are  most 
distinctly  given  to  understand  that  it  is  only  God  who  helps 
wherever  help  is  secured  :  it  is  not  hereby  declared  that  it  is 
God's  purpose  to  save  all  men.  The  second  clause  of  the  verse 
he  applies,  on  the  contrary,  only  to  believers  :  God  will  have  all 
men  to  be  helped,  but  some,  particularly,  in  such  a  way  that 
they  may  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  The  declaration 
immediately  following,  concerning  the  Mediator  given  for  all,  he 
understands  to  mean  merely  that  all  who  are  saved,  and  come  to 
God,  come  and  are  saved  only  through  the  Mediator.*  From  the 
way  in  which  we  have  heard  Luther  express  himself  in  later  per- 
iods, we  infer  that  he  would  then  no  longer  have  found  it  necessary 
to  resort  to  such  interpretations  of  this  passage. 

Luther  also  very  frequently  reproaches  with  their  unbelief,  as 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  329;  xix,  223.     Jena,  i,  539;  iv,  552.     Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  337; 
iii,  33  sq.     Briefe,  iii,  355. 

'  Supra,  p.  245  (A.    D.,  1524.)  *  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  316  sqq. 

*Cf.  upon  tliis  verse  also  supra,  p.  47S  sq.  and  Briefe,  ii,  452. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  289 

being  entirely  their  own  fault,  those  who  refuse  to  accept  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  salvation  which  it  offers.  He  says : 
"  That  not  all  accept  Christ,  is  the  fault  of  those  persons  them- 
selves who  do  not  believe  and  who  indulge  their  incredulity. 
Meanwhile,  the  declaration  and  promise  of  God  remain  universal, 
that  God  desires  {vi/lf)  all  men  to  be  saved."  No  one  is 
excluded  who  does  not  desire  to  exclude  himself.  If  many  are 
lost,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  devil  and  the  evil  will  of  man ;  for  the 
will  of  God  is  a  gracious  will.  He  who  excludes  himself  must 
hold  himseK  accountable  for  his  exclusion.  In  a  Sermon  of  the 
House  Postils  {Dietrich'' s  Edition),  Luther,  in  commenting  upon 
the  saying  of  Christ :  "  Many  are  called,  but  few  chosen,"  refers 
also  to  the  declaration,  in  John  iii.  i6,  of  God's  love  for  the  whole 
world.  The  interpretation  of  the  former  passage  according  to 
which  God  offers  His  grace  to  many,  but  allows  but  few  to  experi- 
ence it,  he  declares  to  be  a  wicked  misunderstanding.  We 
should  be  compelled,  says  he,  to  cherish  hostile  feelings  toward 
this  God,  to  whose  will  alone  it  was  to  be  attributed  that  we  are 
not  all  saved.  The  meaning  he  understands,  upon  the  contrary, 
to  be  :  Although  God  commands  that  the  Gospel  be  preached 
to  all,  in  order  that  all  may  accept  it,  yet  many  do  not  conduct 
themselves  rightly  toward  it,  and  hence  God  is  not  pleased  with 
them  and  does  not  desire  to  have  them.  This  is  called  by 
Christ  "  not  being  chosen,"  /.  e.,  "  not  so  conducting  themselves 
that  God  should  have  pleasure  in  them."  ^  Still,  however,  in 
regard  to  the  question,  why  they  do  not  "believe,  but  remain  in 
sin,  we  must  again  refer  the  reader  to  what  yet  remains  to  be  said 
in  reference  to  the  other  feature  of  Luther's  doctrine  concerning 
God. 

Such,  then,  is  the  extent,  according  to  Luther,  of  the  loving 
will  of  God.  And,inasmuch  as  God  is  love  according  to  His  very 
nature,  Luther  calls  the  exercise  of  this  love  and  grace  (after  Isa. 
xxviii.  21)  the  "peculiar"  or  "own"  work  of  God,  and  again, 
His  "  natural  "  work.  He  is  "  driven  "  {genothigt)  to  the  works 
strange  to  Him,  /.  c.,  anger,  judgment,  eternal  condemnation, 
etc.,  only  by  our  own  pride ;  and  the  object  even  of  these  is  the 
accomplishment  of  His  "  natural  "  work.  By  humiliating  us.  He 
seeks  to  draw  us  to  Himself.     Our  God,  he  says  at  another  time, 

1  Jena,  iv,  552.  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  10 ;  xi,  291  ;  xxix,  233  ;  iv,  122  ;  ii,  84  sqq. 
19 


290  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

is  a  God  0/  life,  and  can  of  Himself  do  npfhins;  other  than  what 
is  good}  Luther  now  often  expresses  himself — as  he  had  once 
before  declared  that  God  hates  wrath — as  though  God  was  not  in 
any  case  really  angry,  or,  at  least,  was  angry  only  with  sin,  and  not 
with  persons.  He  says  :  "  God,  although  He  hates  and  punishes 
sin,  yet  does  not  hate  the  person ;  for  He  loves  the  world,"  etc. 
Still  further,  he  declares  :  "  There  is  in  God  no  wrath  or  dis- 
favor ;  His  heart  and  thoughts  are  nothing  but  pure  love.  Even  by 
sometimes  afflicting  us.  He  but  proves  His  love  toward  us."  In 
thus  speaking,  Luther  does  not  have  in  view  only  the  dealings  of 
God  with  His  own  believing  children,  although  it  is  true  that  the 
majority  of  his  utterances  of  this  kind^have  more  immediate  refer- 
ence to  such.  Thus,  for  example,  he  draws  from  Hos.  xi.  8  the 
general  conclusion  :  "  That  heart  aroused  to  wrath  on  account  of 
the  sins  of  men  is  not  the  true  heart  of  God  {tion  verum  Dei  cor)  ; 
but  this  is  the  true  heart  of  God,  which  is  affected  by  our  miseries, 
which  burns  with  pity,"  etc.  The  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed 
by  such  declarations  as  these  is  essentially  the  same  as  that 
embodied  in  the  distinction  drawn  between  God's  strange  and 
His  own,  or  natural,  work.  The  nature  of  God  is  in  itself  "  pure 
love  and  goodness  "  ;  but  this  very  nature  must  also,  when  sin 
faces  it,  glow  with  zeal  and  act  as  a  burning  fire.  In  illustrating 
this  thought,  Luther  compares  God  with  the  "  king  (queen) 
among  the  bees,"  which  has  no  sting,  and  injures  no  one,  but 
which  must  for  protection,  in  order  not  to  be  killed  by  the  drones, 
have  others  about  it  that  can  sting.  Thus  God  suffers  all  manner 
of  calamities,  and  even  the  devil  himself,  to  come  out  of  hell, 
and  He  uses  them  as  stings  on  every  hand. 

Although,  according  to  all  the  above  utterances,  love  appears 
as  the  profoundest  motive  and  the  supreme  aim  of  God — although 
Luther  calls  even  the  wrath  of  God  but  "  angry  love  " — although 
he,  likewise,  would  permit  to  men  only  such  a  "  wrath  of  God  " 
as  itself  springs  from  pure  love  and  a  good  heart ;  yet  he,  at  the 
same  time,  interprets  the  deeds  of  divine  wrath  as  intended,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  protect  the  honor  and  authority  of  God.  It 
is  by  doing  so — maintaining  the  divine  authority  by  punishment, 
humiliating  and  crucifying  the  sinner,  as  such — that  they  are  to 
be  serviceable  in  advancing  God's  "  own  work."     In  this  way  we 

'Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  329.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvi,  70.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  315  ;  vi,  399,402. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  29 1 

may  perceive  the  harmony  between  the  class  of  passages  which  we 
have  here  been  considering  and  those  above  quoted  concerning 
God's  pmiitive  righteousness.    The  object  for  which  God  uses  the 
"  stings  "  referred  to  is,  in  the  same  passage,  stated  to  be  :  That 
God   may    remain    within    the    bounds   of    His    majesty.     The 
declaration,  that   "  God   hates   sin  ",  retains    its  full  force.     Of 
sinners  themselves,  too,  Luther  again  says,  that  God  hates  them — 
that  is,  in  so  far  as  they  are  sinners.     He  even  deduces  this  from 
the  nature  of  God  :   "  God  is  not  able  to  deny  His  nature,  that  is. 
He  is  not  able  not  to  hate  sin  and  sinners ;  and  He  does  this  of 
necessity,  for  otherwise  He  would  be  unjust,  and  would  love  sin. ' 
The  ever-continuing  love  of  God  for  the  world  can,  moreover,  be 
enjoyed  by  men  only  in  so  far  as  they  by  faith  have  fellowship 
with  (part  in)  the  Son,  whom  the  Father  has  given,  and  who  has 
rendered  satisfaction  to  righteousness.     Thus  he   says :  "  How, 
therefore,  can  these  two  contradictory  things  be  true  :   I  have 
sin  and  am  most  deserving  of  wrath  and  the  divine  hatred,  and — 
the  Father  loves  me?     Nothing  whatsoever  can  here  intervene, 
except  alone  the  Mediator,  Christ."  ^     There  are  disconnected^ 
utterances  of  Luther  which  sound  altogether  as  though  the  anger 
of  God  were  simply  an  illusion,  and  a  matter  of  our  own  subjective  , 
imagination.     Thus,  he  says  of  Christians  :  We  may  take  courage  ■• 
from  the  thought  that  "  God,  although  He  seem  to  be  angry, , 
nevertheless    is    but    doing    His    strange    work    and   simulating ' 
wrath  for  the  crucifixion  of  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  which  is  contrary 
to  God."     Speaking  of  Jacob's  wrestling  with  God,  he  says  :  To 
overcome  God  is  to  overcome  that  which  is  in  our  conscience 
{Gezvissen)  and  is  felt — not  that  God  changes,  but  our  conscience 
changes.     God  remains  ever  kind,  although  there  be  in  our  con- 
science no  other  idea  than  that  He  is  angry. — He  even  goes  on  . 
to  say  of  the  eternally  lost :  "  Thus  He  is  to  the  lost  nothing  but  I 
pure  wrath,  punishes  them   only  with  their  own  consciences."  'J 
This  pain  which  sinners  feel  in  their  consciences,  and  which, 
according  to  Luther,  rises,  in  the  case  of  the  lost,  to  the  constant 
hellish  pain  of  the  sense  of  abandonment  by  God,  is,  in  his  con- 
ception, always  merely  something  subjective — but  this  feeling  is 

ijena,  iv,  635  b,  661  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  370;  xlii,  152;  xiii,  147.     Comm. 
ad.  Gal.,  i,  238  sq. 

^  Op.  Ex.,  V,  179;  xxxiv,  207, 


292  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

awakened  by  God  Himself,  and  He  can  from  His  very  nature 
not  do  otherwise  than  awaken  it,  so  long  as  they  remain  in  sin. 

Luther's  conception  of  God  as  pure  love  appears  even  to  lead 
by  implication  to  a  Dualism  between  God,  from  whom  all  good, 
and  only  good,  flows  for  our  inner  and  outer  life,  and  the  devil, 
from  whom  proceed  all  the  outward  and  inward  discouragements 
of  life.  In  what  a  sweeping  yaw  he  ascribes  all  the  latter  to 
the  devil,  we  shall  have  further  occasion  to  observe  (Chap.  HI.). 
Whilst  declaring  that  God,  who  is  love,  is  burning  full  of  all  that 
is  good,  he  says  of  the  devil,  that  he  exercises  the  precise  oppo- 
site of  love,  and  occasions  all  the  misery  of  the  world.  He  classes 
the  Law  also  (Chap.  V.),  which  judges  and  curses  sinners,  and 
which  Christ  had  to  endure  and  overcome,  with  the  devil,  who  as- 
sailed Christ  and  was  overcome  by  Him.  Yet  it  is,  according  to 
Luther,  God  Himself  who  permits  the  devil  to  accomplish  all  this, 
in  accordance  with  the  latter's  own  will  and  nature.  God  even 
employs  the  devil  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  as  a  "  sting." 
*'  The  devil  does  it,  and  God  ordains  it  {verhdtigts)  ;  for  other- 
wise we  would  become  altogether  too  wicked."  God  ordains  it, 
since  He,  in  so  far  as  may  accord  with  His  own  purposes,  allows 
the  devil  to  do  that  which  the  latter  does  of  his  own  accord  in 
pure  hatred  and  malicious  will.  Thus  Luther  here  speaks  of 
an  "ordaining"  { Ve  ?'h  dnge?i),  z.nd  also  of  a  simple  permission 
{pennittere).  And  just  in  order  that  we  may  not,  after  the 
manner  of  the  Manichseans,  imagine  that  there  are  tM'O  gods,  or 
different  sources  of  good  and  evil  things,  God,  as  Luther  in  one 
passage  declares,  still  calls  that  strange  work  His  own,  although 
it  is  not  His  own  peculiar  and  characteristic  work.' 

Such,  therefore,  we  are  taught,  is  God,  as  He  has  revealed 
Himself,  as  He  desires  to  be  proclaimed  to  men,  as  He  is  to 
become  the  object  of  our  faith  and  worship. 

But  has  God  now  really,  in  this  His  revelation,  manifested 
Himself  entirely  as  He  essentially  is?  Are  we,  according  to 
Luther,  to  regard  the  absolute  God  and  the  conception  gained 
by  a  combination  of  the  specific  statements  of  revelation  as 
precisely  corresponding  in  content,  and  actually  one,  to  be  dis- 
criminated only  by  the  fact  that  the  content  in  the  latter  case  is 
presented  in  a  restricted  form,  adapted  to  man's  power  of  com- 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  366  sqq. ;  vi,  402.     Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  329. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  293 

prehension?  Or  does  there  yet,  upon  Luther's  theory,  remain 
in  God  a  dark  background,  lying  beyond  all  revelation,  in  which 
His  real,  peculiar  nature  may  perhaps  repose,  and  in  the  con- 
templation of  which  the  reliability  of  the  revealed  representa- 
tions in  general  becomes  questionable?  In  the  latter  case,  how 
about  the  position  of  love  in  the  nature  of  God,  and  the  reality 
of  His  loving  will? 

We  are  not  authorized,  upon  the  basis  of  even  the  later  writings 
of  the  Reformer,  to  give  an  affirmative  reply  to  the  first  of  the 
above  questions  ;  but  are  compelled  still  to  give  due  acknowledg- 
ment to  the  other  side  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  God.  When  he 
seeks,  as  we  have  seen,  to  divert  our  attention  from  the  absolute 
to  the  revealed  God,  his  idea  is,  clearly  enough,  that  an  impene- 
trable darkness  must  still  for  us  enshroud  the  nature  of  God  in 
itself,  and  the  relation  between  it  and  the  God  revealed  to  us 
— that,  in  consequence,  such  a  dark  cloud  must  rest  particularly 
upon  the  relation  between  the  inner  being  (heart)  of  God  and 
His  loving  will,  as  represented  in  the  revelation  which  He  gives  us. 

We  must  refer  again  chiefly  to  the  same  leading  passages  upon 
the  subject  in  the  writings  of  Luther  of  which  use  has  been 
already  made,  and,  particularly,  to  those  selected  from  his  Com- 
mentary upon  Genesis,  which  did  not  appear  until  near  the  close 
of  his  life, 

God  is  in  His  essence  (^substantia) ,  as  Luther  says,  wholly 
irrecognizable  {plane  incogtioscibilis') .  What  He  is  in  nature, 
we  cannot  define ;  we  can  only  specify  what  He  is  not,  as,  for 
example,  that  He  is  not  the  voice,  dove,  etc.,  under  the  form  of 
which  He  reveals  Himself.  In  the  predication  of  essence  {snb- 
stantiae)  He  remains  incomprehensible,  even  although  He  reveals 
Himself  in  His  relation  to  us.  When  Luther,  nevertheless, 
offers  a  definition  of  this  "  Substanz  Go  ties,''  he  describes  it,  not 
as  a  nature  of  love,  but  as  "  immeasurable  wisdom  and  omnipo- 
tent power."  This  power  is  then  represented  as  one  with  the 
majesty  of  God  {potentia  absoliita  sen  majestas  Dei) .  The  will  of 
God  is  also  spoken  of,  in  connection  with  His  power,  as  simply 
absolute.  This  is  the  voluntas  substantialis,  into  which  we  should 
not  even  attempt  to  penetrate.  It  is  only  in  connection  with 
the  preached  God  that  a  loving  will  is  spoken  of.  With  the 
essential  will  is  combined  foreknowledge.  What  God  purposes 
according  to   t/iis   will,   He  has  foreseen  from   eternity.     This 


2  94  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

wisdom,  power,  etc,  are  wholly  inaccessible  {^iinpliciter  inacces- 
sibilid)  to  reason.' 

In  this  sphere,  unapproachable  to  us,  lie  also  the  reasons  for 
the  divine  cofiunandments.  Adam  fell  because  he  listened  to 
Satan  when  the  latter  called  in  question  the  reasons  for  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  fruit  of  the  one  tree.  The  divine  Judgments  are 
also  to  be  regarded  as  incomprehensible.'^  But  to  this  sphere 
especially  belong  the  eternal,  essential  divine  will  and  knowledge, 
as  related  to  the  salvation  of  individuals.  As,  along  with  the 
revealed,  there  is  also  a  hidden  God,  so  together  with  the 
revealed  will  of  God,  that  all  should  be  saved,  there  remains  also 
a  secret  predestination. 

We  have  already  heard  Luther  declare,  when  discussing  this 
latter  doctrine,  that,  although  God  knows  all  things,  and  every- 
thing must  come  to  pass  in  accordance  with  His  will,  yet  it  is 
His  earnest  will  to  save  all  men.  Nevertheless,  he  still  concedes, 
witJwut  any  modification  of  the  sweeping  terms,  that  everything 
comes  to  pass  "  according  to  the  decree  {jiLxta  decretuni)  of 
the  will  of  God."  Similarly,  in  his  Commentary  jipo?i  Genesis, 
he  appeals,  in  meeting  those  who  sought  to  wrest  his  own  former 
propositions  concerning  the  necessity  of  all  events  to  the  service 
of  Epicureanism,  to  the  fact,  that  he  had  followed  his  thesis, 
"  that  all  things  are  absolute  and  necessary,"  immediately  with 
the  caution,  that  we  must  look  upon  the  revealed  God.  Yet  the 
thesis  itself  he  does  not  recall.  The  same  idea  lies  embedded 
also  in  the  application  which  he  makes  of  Isa.  x.  15,  and  of  the 
figure  of  the  saw.  In  what  relation  to  the  "  earnest  "  will  of 
God  to  save  men,  itself  also  determined  from  eternity,  stands 
this  decretuni  voluntatis,  according  to  which  everything  comes  to 
pass,  and  to  which,  therefore,  as  we  are  prone  to  think,  and  as 
seems  to  be  established  by  the  language  of  Isa.  x.,  must  be  traced 
even  the  persistence  of  so  many  men  in  sin  and  their  eternal 
punishment?  These  questions  bring  us  again,  according  to 
Luther,  into  the  dark  region  of  mystery.  That  will  to  which  we 
have  suffered  ourselves  to  be  led  back  from  our  contemplation 
of  the  saving  will  of  the  revealed  God  is  precisely,  again,  the 
voluntas  abscondita,  imperscrutabilis.     There  is,  therefore,  accord- 

'  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  170-176;  iv,  122. 

■■'Op.  Ex.,  iv,  122;  vi,  291.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  300. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  C95 

ing  to  Luther,  such  an  inscrutable  will  of  God,  and  men  should 
be  taught  thai  it  exists  ;  it  is  only  the  attempt  to  fathom  it  that 
is  to  be  avoided.  There  is  a  "  secret  counsel  of  God"  ;  only  we 
dare  not  imagine  that  we  are  to  order  our  lives  in  accordance 
with  it.  Luther  appHes  to  this  the  scholastic  term,  voluntas 
beneplaciti  (the  will  by  virtue  of  which  He  does  as  He  thinks 
best),  and  it  is  in  his  conception  the  same  as  the  essential  will 
{I'oluntas  substantialis) .  He  then  again  insists,  that  we  are  to  look 
much  rather  at  the  voluntas  signi,  or  the  will  revealed  in  Christ, 
the  Gospel  and  the  sacraments.  He  remarks,  also,  that  the  latter, 
the  will  of  grace,  ought  properly  to  be  called  voluntas  beneplaciti. 
Nothing  is  farther  from  his  purpose,  however,  than  to  contradict, 
or  object  to,  the  discrimination  of  a  double  divine  will.'  His 
very  language  involves  the  acknowledgment  that  some  are 
"  elected  "  to  salvation  and  others,  accordingly,  not  elected, 
however  he  may  have  controverted  the  quotation  in  such  con- 
nection of  the  passage,  "  Many  are  called,"  etc.  This  election 
belongs  also  to  the  sphere  of  that  which  is  hidden,  and  which  the 
preached  Woid  will  not  and  should  not  discuss.  He  protests 
against  the  reference  of  the  case  of  the  eight  souls  saved  from 
the  Flood  "  to  the  secret  election  by  which  God  has  arranged 
all  things  with  Himself  {secum  disposuit)  from  eternity."  The 
example  of  these  persons  should,  on  the  contrary,  serve  only  to 
humiliate  us  and  arouse  us  to  piety,  warning  us  against  the  idea 
that  we  are  in  no  danger  of  falling  from  grace  after  becoming  its 
recipients.  That  there  is  such  an  election  he  does  not,  however, 
even  here  think  of  denying.-  He  expresses  himself  in  a  precisely 
similar  way  when  discussing  the  term  '^Versehung''''  (foreordina- 
tion).  He  warns  such  as  are  alarmed  on  account  of  foreordina- 
tion,  not  to  worry  themselves  at  all  upon  the  subject ;  but  he  does 
not  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  foreordination  resting  solely  in 
the  will  of  God,  merely  saying :  "  It  is  forbidden  to  us  to  under- 
stand or  concern  ourselves  about  this."  Even  Paul,  says  he,  is 
not  speaking,  in  Rom.  ix.  ii,  of  "the  divine  foreordination  in 
regard  to  every  man  separately,  whether  he  shall  be  saved  or 
not,"  in  order  that  every  man  may  be  led  to  ask  whether  he 
is    thus    foreordained  or  not :  but  the  apostle  holds  up  before 

1  Briefe,  iii,  355.     Op.   Ex.,  vi,  300.     Briefe,  iii,  392;  v,  44.     Op.   Ex.,  ii, 
172  sqq. 

-  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  205  sq. 


296  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

every  man  the  Gospel  and  faith,  and  speaks  of  the  government 
of  God  in  the  Church,  according  to  which  those  who  have  the 
name  of  being  the  people  of  God  are  rejected  on  account  of  their 
unbelief,  and  others,  formerly  unbelieving,  now  become  through 
faith  in  Christ  the  true  Church,  so  that  the  unbelief  of  the 
former  is  entirely  to  blame  for  their  rejection.  But  here,  again, 
Luther  by  no  means  denies  the  foreordination  spoken  of.  He 
only  asserts  that  God  and  the  apostles  would  not  have  us  attempt 
to  pry  into  it.  The  term  ''Versehung''  is  here,  for  Luther, 
entirely  synonymous  with  "  predestination,"  or  "  eternal  elec- 
tion," since  it  combines  in  one  the  conceptions  of  the  fore- 
knowledge and  the  purpose  of  God.' 

We  turn  now  to  a  closer  examination  of  the  most  comprehen- 
sive of  Luther's  utterances  upon  this  subject,  /.  e.,  that  occurring 
in  the  Latin  Commentary  upon  Genesis,  Chap,  xxvi?  It  will 
be  found  in  full  accord  with  all  that  has  been  above  presented. 
It  is  reported,  he  says,  that  among  the  nobility  and  prominent 
men  of  the  day^  outrageous  utterances  are  being  circulated  con- 
cerning predestination,  or  divine  foreknowledge,  as  though,  if 
one  be  predestinated  (to  salvation)  he  will  be  saved,  whether  his 
conduct  be  good  or  evil ;  and,  if  not  predestinated,  he  will  be 
eternally  lost,  without  regard  to  his  own  deeds.  Against  this 
he  argues :  According  to  such  reasoning  the  incarnation  and 
work  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  sacraments  would 
be  utterly  robbed  of  their  significance  for  us.  A  man  who  was 
predestinated  to  salvation  would  thus  be  saved  without  the  Son 
or  the  means  of  grace.  And  of  what  benefit  would  the  sacra- 
ments be,  if  they  are  "  uncertain  and  useless  in  the  very  matter 
of  our  salvation"?  We  charge  God  with  folly  in  the  sending  of 
His  Son,  His  Law  and  His  Gospel,  when  we  represent  that  He 
meant  thereby  to  accomplish  nothing  more  than  that  we  should 
be  uncertain,  and  doubt  whether  we  should  be  saved  or  damned. 
Hence,  such  suggestions  are  Satanic  delusions.  To  them  we 
must  oppose  the  true  and  secure  knowledge  of  Christ,  laying  firm 
hold  of  the  promises  of  God.     If  God  should  not  abide  by  His 

'  Briefe,  v,  754.     Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  9  sqq.  ^Qp    jr^.^  vi,  290-300. 

•■•Cf.  the  letter  of  Dec.  28,  1542,10  the  Count  of  Mansfeld,  Briefe,  v,  512  sq.  It 
was  at  just  about  this  time  that  Luther  composed  this  part  of  liis  commentary ; 
and  the  reference  to  the  transactions  concerning  the  town  of  Wurzen  (Op. 
Ex.,  vi,  333)  also  indicates  A.  D.  1542  or  1543. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  297 

promises,  it  would  be  all  over  with  our  salvation ;  but  we  have 
this  consolation,  that  in  the  midst  of  our  mutability  we  can  find 
refuge  in  the  immutability  of  God  (cf.  Rom.  xi.  29).  He  has, 
therefore,  says  he,  in  his  book,  De  servo  arbitrio,  and  elsewhere 
called  attention  to  the  distinction  which  must  be  observed  when 
treating  of  the  knowledge  {iwtltia),  or,  to  speak  more  properly, 
of  the  personality  (<■/<?  subjecio)  of  the  Deity,  /.  c,  we  must  treat 
either  of  the  hidden  or  of  the  revealed  God ;  and  as  to  the 
former,  we  can  have  no  faith,  no  knowledge  and  no  apprehension, 
but  must  allow  the  secrets  of  God  to  remain  concealed  from  us. 
Thus  Jesus  (Acts  i.  7),  to  the  inquiry  of  the  disciples  whether 
it  was  predestinated  that  the  kingdom  should  then  be  established, 
replied  that  it  was  not  for  them  to  know  the  time.  It  is  the 
desire  of  God  that  we  should  allow  Him  to  remain  hidden 
where  He  has  not  revealed  Himself  to  us.  Yet  He  has  sought, 
from  the  very  beginning,  to  anticipate  our  curious  questionings, 
and  has  hence  set  before  us  His  will  and  counsel,  as  follows j^ 
"  I  will  reveal  to  thee  foreknowledge  and  predestination  in  an 
excellent  way,  but  not  in  the  way  of  carnal  wisdom,  as  thou  dost 
vainly  expect.  Thus  will  I  do  :  I  will,  from  an  unrevealed  God, 
become  a  God  revealed,  and  yet  remain  the  same  God.  I  will 
come  into  the  flesh,  or  send  to  you  my  Son,  who  will  die  for  thy 
sins  and  rise  again.  Thus  will  I  fulfil  thy  desire,  that  thou  mayest 
know  whether  thou  art  predestinated  or  not.  Listen  to  Him. 
Look  upon  Him,  as  He  lies  in  the  manger,  etc.  *  *  *  There 
thou  shalt  certainly  apprehend  me.  When  thou  hast  heard  Him, 
art  baptized  in  His  name,  and  shalt  love  His  Word,  then  art 
thou  certainly  predestinated,  and  sure  of  thine  eternal  salvation. 
But  if  thou  despisest  the  Word,  then  art  thou  certainly  under 
eternal  condemnation."  God,  adds  Luther,  did  not  descend 
from  heaven  in  order  to  make  thee  uncertain  about  predestina- 
tion, to  teach  thee  contempt  for  the  sacraments,  absolution,  and 
the  other  divine  ordinances.  On  the  contrary.  He  has  estab- 
lished these  for  the  very  purpose  of  making  thee  perfectly  certain 
and  taking  out  of  thy  heart  the  disease  of  doubt ;  so  that  thou 
mightest  not  only  believe  with  thy  heart,  but  also  see  with  thine 
eyes  and  grasp  with  thy  hands.  Why  dost  thou  reject  this,  and 
complain  that  thou  knowest  not  whether  thou  art  predestinated? 
To  meet  the  case  of  such  as  doubt  whether  they  really  believe, 
and  distress  themselves  with  the  thought  that  they  cannot  believe, 


298  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

he  relates  how  he,  upon  one  occasion,  dealt  with  a  woman  who 
was  in  such  a  pitiable  state  of  mind.  He  repeated  the  articles 
of  faith  one  by  one,  and  asked  her  in  regard  to  each  one, 
whether  she  acknowledged  it  to  be  true.  She  assented  to  the 
truth  of  them  all,  but  still  professed  to  be  unable  to  believe  it. 
He  then  pronounced  the  latter  impression  a  Satanic  delusion, 
and  set  her  mind  at  rest  in  regard  to  her  fancied  unbelief ;  for, 
if  an}'  one  does  not  doubt  that  the  Son  of  God  has  died  for  him, 
he  certainly  believes  it.  Should  some  one  further  object,  that  he 
does  not  know  whether  he  shall  remain  in  the  faith,  Luther  is 
ready  with  the  reply :  Take  to  yourself  the  present  promise  and 
predestination,  and  ask  no  questions  about  the  hidden  counsel 
of  God.  Acceptest  thou  the  Word  of  the  revealed  God,  it  will 
continually  reveal  to  thee  also  the  hidden  God,  for  "  He  who  sees 
me,  sees  also  the  Father"  (John  xiv.  9).  Clingest  thou  with 
firm  faith  to  the  revealed  God,  so  that  thy  heart  is  fully  per- 
suaded that  thou  shalt  not  lose  Christ,  even  though  all  else  be 
taken  from  thee,  then  art  thou  most  certainly  predestinated,  and 
thou  shalt  know  the  hidden  God — yea,  thou  knowest  Him  now% 
if  thou  knowest  the  Son  and  His  purpose  to  be  to  thee  thy  Lord 
and  Saviour ;  for  thus  thou  art  certain  that  God  is  also  thy  Lord 
and  Father.  Most  urgently  does  Luther  repeat,  that  we  are  to 
cling  to  Christ  alone,  and  not  ourselves  ascend  to  heaven.  "  If 
thou  hast  Him,  then  hast  thou  also  the  hidden  God  equally  with 
the  revealed."  He  then  again  cites  the  very  immutability  of 
God  as  a  ground  of  rejoicing  for  us,  /.  c,  that  God  is  immutable, 
that  He  works  with  immutable  necessity,  and  cannot  deny  Him- 
self,'but  keeps  His  promises.  He  declares,  in  conclusion,  that 
he  has  been  very  anxious  to  present  the  instructions  and  admo- 
nitions here  given,  because  he  foresees  that  many  will  after  his 
death  appeal  to  his  own  books  in  support  of  the  errors  in  ques- 
tion. He  has,  for  example,  among  other  things,  written  that 
"  all  things  are  absolute  and  necessary"  ;  but  he  then  also  imme- 
diately added,  that  we  must  look  upon  the  revealed  God,  of 
whom  we  sing :  "  Jesus  Christ  it  is,  Of  Sabaoth  Lord."  But 
perverse  men  will  pass  by  all  such  passages,  and  eagerly  seize 
upon  those  which  relate  to  the  hidden  God.  His  readers  are 
therefore  cautioned  to  remember  that  he  also  taught  that  Ave 
ought  not  to  endeavor  to  fathom  the  predestination  of  the  hidden 
God,  but  be  content  with  the  predestination  which  is  revealed 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  299 

through  the  call  and  ministry  of    the  Word.     This,  he    holds, 
should  free  him  from  the  charge  of  encouraging  such  errors. 

This  leading  passage  from  Luther's  later  writings  must,  as  has 
been  said,  be  kei:it  in  view  in  connection  with  the  utterances 
upon  the  same  subject  previously  cited,  i  Here,  as  before,  he 
recognizes  the  hidden  will  and  the  eternal  foreordination. 
Here,  too,  all  things  occurring  in  time  follow  from  this  postulate 
by  immutable  necessity.  The  proposition  touching  the  necessity 
of  all  events,  which  he  does  not  recall,  but  from  which  he  merely 
turns  the  attention  at  once  upon  the  revealed  will  of  Ciod,  is  here 
applied  even  to  the  fact  of  the  salvation  of  some  whilst  others 
are  unsaved.  He  allows  also  the  association,  as  equivalents,  of 
the  terms,  "predestination"  and  "foreknowledge",  to  pass 
without  objection.  He  here,  indeed,  repeatedly  makes  the  strik- 
ing statement,  that  to  those  who  accept  the  God  revealed  in 
Christ,  the  hidden  God  will  also  reveal  Himself  with  His  pre- 
destination ;  but  in  this  he  means  to  say  no  more  than  that  those 
who  actually  believe  and  persevere  in  their  faith  will  become 
more  and  more  fully  assured  of  their  own  predestination^  But  to 
whom,  in  accordance  with  the  immutable  counsel  of  God,  will  it, 
by  awakening,  regenerating,  preserving  grace,  /w  made  i/iwardfy 
possible  also  to  accept  the  Word  preached  to  all  and  to  persevere 
in  their  faith?  To  this  question  we  here,  again,  fail  to  receive  the 
desired  answer.  Luther  merely  exhorts  to  such  an  acceptance, 
giving  to  those  who  already  believe  upon  the  Son  of  God  crucified 
for  them,  and  are  yet  in  doubt  through  the  secret  suggestions  of 
the  devil  only  in  regard  to  their  own  faith,  the  assurance  of  the 
actual  existence  of  their  faith — admonishes  all  to  cling  continually 
to  the  revealed  God,  and  be  assured  also  of  continuous  protection 
by  Him — and  urges  the  certainty  of  those  promises  of  God  in 
Christ  which  apply  precisely  to  such  as  believe  upon  Christ  and 
abide  in  fellowship  with  Him.  Does  he,  then,  take  it  for  granted 
that  what  he  thus  demands  of  men  in  the  name  of  God  will  be 
also  made  inwardly  possible  to  all?  Or  is  there  still  also,  as 
openly  afifirmed  in  the  pamphlet  against  Erasmus,  an  inability  to 
accept  and  an  inability  to  persevere,  based  upon  an  immutable 
decree  of  God?  Luther  did  not  afifirm  the  former,  nor  did  he 
either  assert  or  deny  the  latter,  although  in  the  problem  with 
which  he  was  dealing,  and  in  the  ungodly  inferences  which  he 
was  combating,  this  question  must  of  necessity  have  often  forced 


300  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

itself  upon  his  attention.  Indeed,  he  does  not,  in  this  passage, 
even  repeat  his  former  utterances  concerning  an  eternal  will  of 
God,  according  to  which  He  desires  the  salvation  of  all — and 
does  not  even  cite  such  sweeping  texts  of  Scripture  among  the 
promises  to  which  appeal  is  here  taken. 

We  are  still  further  justified,  finally,  in  the  suggestion  of  such 
questions,  by  other  utterances  of  the  Reformer  and  by  further 
characteristics  of  his  doctrinal  method.  The  question  was  at 
one  time  put  directly  to  him,  "  why  one  hears  and  another  does 
not  hearJ"  To  this  he  does  not  reply  that,  since  God  in  the 
very  preaching  of  the  Word  makes  it  possible  also  for  all  hearers 
to  believe,  the  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  the  personal  de- 
cision of  each  individual  hearer,  but  he  merely  says  :  We  have 
no  commandment  of  God  to  know  this,  and  hence  it  is  not  for 
us  to  inquire  about  it.'  If  we,  then,  still  further  inquire,  whether 
the  reason  why  many  do  not  listen  to  the  Word  does  not  lie  in 
God's  own  wall  and  working,  inasmuch  as  He  does  not  grant  them 
faith  or  that  possibility  of  believing  which  can  result  only  throu^ 
His  spiritual  agency,  Luther  himself  appears  to  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion thus  suggested,  repeating  here,  as  he  does,  an  utterance 
which  we  felt  ourselves  fully  justified  in  thus  interpreting  when 
met  with  in  another  connection.  He  had,  in  1525,  declared: 
"  In  the  W'ord  comes  the  Spirit,  and  gives  faith  where  and  to 
whom  He  will."  Thus,  also,  we  now  read  in  the  Marburg 
Articles  :  "  The  Holy  Spirit  gives,  as  He  tvill,  faith  into  our  hearts, 
when  we  hear  the  Gospel  of  Christ  "  ;  and,  still  more  definitely,  in 
the  S'-hivabach  Articles :  "  God  gives  faith  by  His  Holy  Spirit 
through  the  Word  as  a  means,  as  and  luherc  He  will  "  ;  and  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  :  "  God  gives  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  works 
faith  where  and  when  He  will  (///'/  et  qiiando,  visum  est  Deo)  in 
those  who  hear  the  Gospel."  In  similar  spirit,  Luther  says  in  his 
letter  of  A.  D.  1537  to  the  Swiss  :  I  see  no  defect  in  the  first  of 
your  articles,  treating  of  the  oral  Word ;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
work  inwardly  upon  the  hearts  of  the  hearers,  and  the  external 
Word  alone  accomplishes  nothing.  Otherwise,  all  would  become 
believers  who  hear  the  Word  •  *  *  *  but  that  the  oral  Gos- 
pel is  called  the  Word  and  power  of  God  (Rom  1.  16),  as  that 
by  which  God  calls  and  draws  whom  He  "will  through  His  Holy 

'  Briefe,  iii,  393  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  3OI 

Spirit.^  In  these  confessions,  it  is  the  aim  of  the  language  em- 
ployed, as  is  e\'ident  particularly  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to 
exclude  the  idea,  that  merit  of  any  kind  upon  our  part  attracts  to 
us  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor  is  it  at  all  implied,  upon 
the  other  hand,  that  God  is  ready  in  His  free  grace  to  grant  to 
the  hearts  of  all  hearers,  in  any  way  and  at  any  time,  at  least  the 
possibility  of  believing,  and  that  their  unbelief  comes  in  this  way 
to  be  their  own  fault.  Yet  the  thought  of  such  a  further  defini- 
tion must  have  been  naturally  suggested  in  the  conflict  with 
Zwingli  and  the  Swiss  as  a  means  of  repelling  their  more  decided 
predestination.  In  entije  harmony  with  the  above  utterances  is 
the  doctrine  of  Luther,  to  which  our  attention  is  to  be  yet  further 
directed,  concerning  the  inner  condition  of  the  individual  himself 
in  whom  the  Spirit  does  or  does  not  work  faith  through  the  Word. 
In  addition  to  all  the  above,  we  recall,  finally,  the  emphasis  with 
which  Luther,  in  a  letter  to  Capito  in  1537,  reaffirms  his  adher- 
ence to  the  positions  taken  in  his  publication  against  Erasmus. 
He  in  this  letter  withholds  Tiis  approval  from  the  proposed  collec- 
tion of  his  writings,  and  professes,  rather,  a  saturnine  hunger  to  de- 
vour them  all.  Then  he  adds  :  "  I  do  not  know  any  book  of  mine 
that  is  right,  unless,  pertiaps,  De servo  arhitrio  and  the  Catechism.'"* 

To  what  conclusion  are  we,  then,  finally  brought  in  regard  to 
the  mutual  irlation  between  the  two  phases  of  Luther's  doctrine 
concerning  God  ? 

Must  we  not,  after  all,  think  of  them  as  always,  in  Luther's 
Conception,  perfectly  united,  as  the  matter  had  undeniably  been 
represented  in  his  earlier  writings,  especially  in  the  De  servo 
arbitrio  ?  In  that  case,  we  would  be  compelled  to  interpret  his 
meaning  more  specifically  as  follows  :  If,  according  to  the  De 
servo  arbitrio,  a  will  of  God,  that  all  shall  be  saved,  is  to  be  pro- 
claimed without  any  limitations,  God  then  only  allows  this  to  be 
proclaimed  without  Himself  really  having  such  a  will.  God,  in 
Himself,  really  wills  that  some  shall  be  saved  and  others  lost ; 
and  He  accomplishes  this  will,  moreover,  by  making  the  preached 
Word  effective  in  the  one  class,  while  not  making  an  escape  from 
the  inherited  condemnation  in  any  way  inwardly  possible  for 
others.     The  declaration,   that  God  wishes   to  save  all  if  they 

1  Vid.  Vol.  I.,  p.  500.     .     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  89;  xxiv,  325.     Briefe,  v,  85. 
'  Briefe,  v,  70. 


302  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

believe  upon  Christ,  means  therefore,  in  fact,  that  He  wishes  to 
save  them,  in  so  far  as  He  Himself  shall  effect  in  them  the 
required  state  of  mind.  God  bids  us  to  proclaim  such  a  general 
will  to  save,  in  order  then,  through  the  attractive  power  of  this 
proclamation,  to  awaken  faith  in  those  whom  alone  He  has  pre- 
destinated to  salvation.  The  same  object  is  had  in  view  in  com- 
manding men  to  believe,  in  the  issuing  of  which  commandment 
God  Himself  knows  and  purposes  that  not  all  can  obey  it.  God 
is  faithful  to  His  promises,  since  He  always  affixes  to  them  the 
condition  that  they  are  to  be  accepted  in  faith,  and  since  He 
certainly  bestows  what  is  promised  upon  those  in  whom  He  works 
and  preserves  faith.  The  unbelieving  are  guilty,  since  their  evil 
will,  although  God  Himself  withholds  from  them  the  possibility 
of  escaping  from  it,  is  yet  always  their  own  will.  Luther  now 
declared,  with  great  positiveness,  that  if  we  fix  our  eyes,  and 
keep  them  fixed,  upon  Christ,  God  will  make  us  entirely  certain 
of  our  eternal  salvation,  or  of  our  predestination  to  it,  although 
he  had  at  an  earlier  period  asserted  that,  according  to  Prov.  xi. 
4  sq.,  we  must  labor  without  knowing  the  future.'  But  we  would 
still,  in  accordance  with  this,  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  that 
it  yet  remains  uncertain  whether  we  will  always  be  in  a  state  to 
fulfil  the  condition  afTixed.  He  now  points  with  verv  special 
emphasis,  as  was  not  previously  the  case,  to  the  sacraments,  speci- 
fying particularly  the  "  certain  and  clear  "  promise  given  us  in 
baptism  as  one  which  we  should  firmly  grasp.^  What  he  now 
says  of  "  seeing  with  the  eyes  and  grasping  with  the  hands  " 
sounds  as  though,  in  fact,  a  sign  from  heaven,  such  as  he  has 
forbidden  us  to  desire,  had,  after  all,  been  granted  us  by  God's 
free  grace  in  the  sacraments.  But  here,  again,  we  would  be  com- 
pelled to  add,  that  God  will  nevertheless  make  possible  only  to 
some  the  required  believing  reception  of  the  sacraments,  the 
continuous  apprehension  of  the  baptismal  promise,  etc.  Just  in 
this  way  we  would  find  it  necessary  to  interpret  the  utterances 
concerning  God's  loving  will.  Similarly,  also,  all  the  declarations 
concerning  the  heart  of  God,  and  even  concerning  God  Himself 
as  being  love,  could  be  really  applicable  only  to  that  heart  of  God 
which  He  cherishes  toward  the  "  some  "  whom  He  has  fore- 
ordained to  eternal  salvation. 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  330.  2  Cf.  especially  also  Op.  Ex.,  v,  178. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  303 

If  it  were  our  task  to  show  how — if  it  were  necessary  to  har- 
monize and  reconcile  with  one  another  at  any  price  the  mutually 
opposing  statements — a  reconciliation  could  at  all  be  thought  of, 
we  might  be  actually  inclined  to  seek  it  at  the  expense  of  the 
first-mentioned  class.  But  the  question  before  us  is,  whether, 
and  how,  both  sides  were  reconciled  in  Luther's  consciousness 
and  in  his  teaching.  And  it  is  to  be  here  remembered,  first  of 
all,  that  Luther  himself  in  his  later  years  never  actually  presented 
any  such  solution  of  the  problem.  Such  was  not  the  solitary 
utterance  found,  without  further  specifications,  in  the  comment 
upon  Isa.  X.  15 — that  we  cannot  even  do  evil  without  the  stimu- 
lating power  of  God.  In  connection  with  the  proposition,  that 
"  all  things  are  necessary,"  the  question  yet  remains,  whether  this 
cannot,  by  some  sort  of  further  reservation,  be  harmonized  with 
the  proclamation  of  the  revealed  God,  to  whom  we  are  much 
rather  to  cling.  The  matter  is  certainly  presented  in  a  different 
way  in  the  repeated  and  clear  declarations  of  the  earlier  Luther. 
But,  granting  that  the  strong  and  unlimited  proposition  expressed 
at  least  his  privately-entertained  dogmatic  view,  let  the  attempt 
then  be  made,  also,  to  reconcile  this  interpretation  of  his  words 
with  the  whole  character  of  his  preaching  and  of  the  man  himself. 
Let  the  joyous,  hearty,  exultant  tone  in  which  he  presented  to  his 
hearers,  as  universal  in  their  scope,  the  blessed  promises  of  God, 
and  the  lofty  and  impressive  earnestness  with  which  he,  by  per- 
suasion and  rebuke,  sought  to  encourage  all  to  their  acceptance, 
be  regarded  in  connection  with  the  dogmatic  conviction,  always 
at  the  same  time  entertained,  that  he  was  urging  many,  perhaps 
the  majority,  of  his  hearers  to  do  that  which  was  simply  impos- 
sible for  them — that  he  was  consequently  asserting  infinitely  more 
than  could  properly  be  asserted.  When  referring  to  the  death 
of  Christ,  he  ahvays  merely  affirms  that  Christ  died  for  all, 
although  this,  if  the  fruit  of  His  death  was  absolutely  denied  to 
so  many,  could  no  longer  have  any  significance.  He  never,  in 
such  connection,  indicates  any  limitation,  or  reservation,  although 
he  might  have  supported  such  a  limitation  by  Christ's  "for  many," 
not  "  for  all,"  in  Matt.  xx.  28  and  xxvi.  28.  The  greatest  im- 
portance attaches,  finally,  to  the  utterances  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  God  as  revealing  Himself  in  Christ.  In  Christ,  the  Saviour, 
the  Son  of  love,  is  the  entire  God.  Here  we  look  into  the  heart 
of  God ;  here  we  see  that  His  very  nature  is  simple  and  eternal 


304  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

love.  Nor  can  the  force  of  these  declarations  be  at  all  broken 
by  the  reflection,  that  Luther  describes  the  essence  {Siihsiajiz)  of 
the  hidden  God  not  at  all  as  love,  but  as  power ;  for  love  must,  in 
any  case,  be  regarded  as  existing  in  the  essential  God,  since  He 
has  provided  salvation  for  at  least  some  men.  We  cannot,  there- 
fore, understand  the  description  referred  to  as  a  full  description 
of  God  in  His  essential  character,  but  only  as  a  designation  of 
that  which  we  find  in  God  when  we  depend  upon  our  own  specu- 
lations instead  of  upon  the  revealed  Word.  The  two  conceptions 
may,  therefore,  be  harmonized  by  maintaining  that  God,  who  is 
at  all  events  essentially  and  fundamentally  power,  nevertheless, 
as  is  however  revealed  to  us  only  in  the  Gospel,  under  the 
promptings  of  His  heart  employs  His  power  only  in  sincere  love. 
Thus,  again,  we  learn  in  respect  to  the  majesty  of  God,  in  which 
we  can  without  revelation  discover  only  terrible  power,  that  we  in 
Christ  look  also  into  its  very  depths — even  that  in  Christ  Him- 
self it  proffers  itself  to  us  with  all  its  blessings,  thus  proving  itself 
also  a  majesty  of  beneficent  love.'  As  the  hidden  God,  with  His 
power,  so  also  the  love  of  God,  is  designated  as  boundless  and 
unfathomable.  It  is  an  "  abyss  "  of  the  paternal  heart  revealing 
itself  to  us.^  Luther  thus  frequently  calls  the  love  of  God  directly 
his  "  nature."  ^  Hence  he  says  *  that  in  Moses,  the  proclaimer 
of  the  Law,  we  do  not  as  yet  hear  God  Himself,  since  God  can- 
not speak  in  any  other  way  than  that  which  comports  with  the 
character  of  His  own  nature  {denn  ei-  von  Natiir  gcartct  ist). 

In  any  such  attempts  at  reconciliation,  we  must  to  the  utter- 
ances concerning  the  "  own  natural  "  works  of  God  at  once 
append  the  opposing  statements,  that,  according  to  Luther,  killing 
and  condemning  to  perdition  are  no  less  truly  God's  work,  and 
that  it  was  even  Yi\%  purpose  from  eternity  thus  to  deal  with  the 
majority  of  the  race.  To  the  assertion,  likewise,  that  God  only 
"  simulates  wrath,"  we  must  at  once  add  that,  in  truth.  His 
merely  simulating  is  itself  a  simulation  of  the  God  who  so  speaks 
while  secretly  thinking  otherwise.  We  have  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Luther  himself  nowhere  presents  any  such  harmoniz- 
ing of  his  utterances.  We  now  recall,  however,  as  looking  in  that 
direction,   the  passage  in  the  House  Fostils  which  pronounces 

»  Supra,  p.  280.     Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  165.  '■'  Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  238. 

"  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  159;  xxxiv,  206,  *  Vid.  supra,  p.  232. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  305 

ungodly  the  opinion  that  God  Himself  is  willing  to  allow  but  few 
to  experience  His  grace.  It  is  a  statement  which  seems  to  be 
required  in  all  its  force,  and  without  reservation,  by  the  doctrine 
of  the  loving  nature  of  God. 

So  great  and  irremovable  are  the  difficulties  attending  the 
theory,  that  Luther,  in  his  own  mind,  reconciled  the  two  features 
of  this  doctrine  in  the  way  suggested.  Not  only  does  the  doctrine 
which  such  a  method  develops  arouse  suspicion  on  its  own 
account,  but  the  attributing  of  it  to  Luther  can  scarcely  be  justi- 
fied. He  might,  indeed,  have  entertained  such  a  view,  whatever 
objections  may  to  us  seem  to  lie  against  it ;  but  his  entire  doc- 
trinal method  stands  opposed  to  the  theory.  Under  these 
circumstances,  it  cannot  surprise  us  that  a  solution  directly  oppo- 
site to  the  above  should  have  been  attempted.  Some  theologians, 
both  of  ancient  and  of  modern  times,  reconcile  the  genuine 
proffer  of  salvation  to  all  with  predestination  by  assuming  that 
the  fate  of  those  who  are  not  saved  has  been  decreed  by  God  from 
eternity  because  He  from  eternity  foresaw  that  they  would  not 
avail  themselves  of  that  acceptance  of  salvation  made  possible 
also  for  them.  Upon  this  theory,  indeed,  the  possibility  of  the 
divine  foreknowledge  and,  at  the  same  time,  of  a  free  decision 
upon  man's  part  for  or  against  the  reception  of  the  offered  grace 
still  remains  an  unfathomable  mystery ;  but  the  position  is  thus 
maintained,  that  God's  own  absolute  will  in  no  case  makes  from 
the  first  impossible  the  acceptance  of  the  proffer  which  He 
presents  with  such  apparent  earnestness.  The  attempt  has 
accordingly  been  made  to  attribute  to  Luther  the  theory,  that 
the  will  of  God  in  accordance  with  which  salvation  has  been 
secretly  ordained  for  only  a  portion  of  the  hearers  of  the  Word 
remains,  indeed,  eternally  immutable,  but  was  originally  thus 
determined  only  upon  the  basis  of  this  foreknowledge.  For  such 
a  view  may  be  adduced  utterances  of  Luther  himself  in  one  of 
his  consolatory  letters.*  He  here  again  says  that  God,  it  is  true, 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  elected  and  appointed 
(^desfinasse)  some  men  to  eternal  life,  rejecting  others.  He  then 
points,  however,  as  elsewhere,  at  once  away  from  the  hidden 
God  to  Christ,  out  of  whose  hand  no  one  can  snatch  His  sheep. 

'  Briefe,  vi,  427  sqq.     The  letter  is  without  a  date,  but  was,  at  all  events, 
written  in  the  latter  portion  of  Luther's  hfe.     The  second  version  of  the  letter 
Briefe,  vi,  429  sq  ,  is  merely  a  corruption  of  the  first. 
20 


3o6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

But  he  further  declares  :  But  those  of  whom  it  is  said,  "  They 
went  out  from  us,"  etc.  (i  John  ii.  ig),  went  out  of  their  own 
will  itwhintate'),  fell  of  their  own  will.  And,  because  they  were 
foreknown  as  of  those  who  would  fall,  they  were  not  predestinated 
(to  salvation)  ;  but  they  would  have  been  predestinated  if  they 
had  been  of  those  who  would  return  and  remain  in  holiness  and 
truth.  Is  not  the  non-predestination  of  the  latter  persons  traced 
simply  to  a  foreknowledge  of  their  own  conduct?  Cannot  the 
same  be  said  also  of  those  who  do  not  at  all  enter  upon  the 
fellowship  offered  them?  Must  not,  consequently,  the  "  rejection 
of  the  others  "  be  throughout  regarded  as  based  upon  such  fore- 
knowledge? But  to  these  questions  we  must  immediately  reply, 
that  the  last  quotation  loses  its  evidential  force  at  once,  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  Luther's  further  utterances  concerning  the 
hidden  and  the  revealed  will  of  God.  The  question  thus  again 
arises :  Is  this  not  spoken  from  the  standpoint  of  the  God 
revealed  and  to  be  preached?  Had  God,  according  to  His 
hidden  will,  really  given  to  such  persons  the  possibility  of  not 
falling?  Did  He  not  merely  foresee  what  He  had  also,  at  the 
same  time.  Himself  determined  according  to  His  hidden  will — 
what  could  not,  indeed,  in  consequence  of  His  foreknowledge, 
have  happened  otherwise?  It  would  be  incomprehensible,  that 
Luther,  if  he  already  had  this  theory  A\'orked  out  in  his  own  mind, 
should  have  yet  employed  the  terms  "  prescience  "  and  "  predes- 
tination "  as  perfectly  synonymous,  and  that  he  should  never,  in 
dealing  with  persons  who,  in  accordance  with  the  eternal  fore- 
knowledge of  God  as  well  as  His  eternal  will,  had  fallen  upon  a 
theory  of  predestination  leading  either  to  despair  or  to  utter 
frivolity,  have  openly  and  plainly  declared  the  divine  will  to  be 
simply  the  result  of  such  a  foreknowledge  as  still  left  open  to  all 
hearers  of  the  Word  the  possibility  of  its  reception. 

Those  who  attribute  to  Luther  the  former  of  the  theories  above 
mentioned  can  at  least  reply  to  the  objection,  that  he  himself 
never  plainly  presented  such  an  explanation  of  the  difficulty, 
that  he  presented  such  views  distinctly  enough  in  his  earlier 
writings,  and  refrained  from  doing  so  at  a  later  date  only  because 
the  doctrine  then  appeared  to  him  too  severe  and  harsh  for  his 
hearers  and  readers.  Those  who  would  ascribe  to  him  the 
second  theory  are  utterly  unable  to  explain  why  he  never  devel- 
oped it,  never  even  presented  it  as  plainly  as  possible,  and  never 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  307 

by  it  carefully  corrected  his  own  earlier  teachings,  of  the  perils 
connected  with  which  he  was  so  well  aware.  To  ascribe  this 
theory  to  him,  in  the  face  of  such  facts,  is  a  display  of  audacity 
which  may  be  understood,  indeed,  in  the  zealous  advocates  of 
the  theory  itself,  but  which  can  never  be  justified  by  a  candid 
historical  examination  of  the  utterances  of  Luther. 

But  what  is,  then,  the  real  state  of  the  case?  How  did  Luther 
reconcile  the  two  aspects  of  the  subject?  How  did  he  solve  the 
contradiction  which,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  confronts  us  when  we 
place  side  by  side  the  passages  of  his  writings  which  point  in  the 
two  opposite  directions? 

The  fact  is,  Luther  never  worked  out  for  himse/f  any  such 
theory  of  reconciliation,  never  attempted  any  solution  of  the 
problem.  It  was  his  teaching,  that  our  potuer  of  apprehension 
does  not  extend  so  far — that  we  must  be  satisfied  to  accept  even  the 
incomprehensible  and  inexplicable ;  for  Luther  fails  to  find  any 
such  harmonizing  suggestions  in  the  revealed  Word  of  God.  He 
himself  asserts,  that  there  remains  for  us  a  contradiction  which 
we  cannot  and  should  not  attempt  to  solve.  Thus,  for  example, 
in  a  passage  above  cited  concerning  the  "  secret  election," 
which  he  admits,  but  which  he  refuses  to  find  exemplified  in  the 
case  of  the  souls  saved  in  the  ark,  he  says :  "  This  we  are  not 
able  to  comprehend  in  our  minds,  and  it  seems  to  us  in  conflict 
with  the  revealed  will  of  God."  Yet  how  little  he  hesitates  to 
place  side  by  side,  without  any  attempt  at  reconciliation,  state- 
ments which  for  us  appear  to  be  mutually  contradictory,  may  be 
strikingly  seen  in  his  declaration  :  "  Although  God  foreknows  all 
things,  and  all  things  must  come  to  pass  according  to  His  will, 
nevertheless  the  salvation  of  all  men  is  the  earnest  will  of  God."  ^ 
In  direct  opposition,  even,  to  all  such  harmonizing  theories  as 
we  might  be  disposed  to  frame  for  our  own  satisfaction,  we  must 
always  bear  in  mind  the  frequently-repeated  admonitions  :  "  Do 
not  pry  into  things  too  high  for  thee,"  etc.^  "  There  is  no 
science  and  no  knowledge  of  God,  in  so  far  as  He  has  not  been 
revealed."  ^  We  must  even  apply  to  them  what  Luther  bluntly 
says  in  regard  to  speculations  concerning  the  divine  majesty : 
"  It  is  impossible  that  they  should  be  true."  *  ^ 

1  Briefe,  iii,  355.     Supra,  pp.  288,  294. 

2  Luther  still  (vid.  Vol.  I.,  p.  330)  is  particularly  fond  of  quoting  Prov.  xxv, 
27  ;  Ecclesiasticus  iii,  22.     Cf.  Briefe,  iv,  247;  v,  514. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  vi,  292.     Supra,  p.  297.  *0p.  Ex.,  ii,  205. 


3o8  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

If  it  be  still  objected,  that  our  minds  cannot  possibly,  in  view 
of  divinely  implanted  intellectual  impulse,  necessity  and  aspira- 
tions, be  satisfied  while  such  an  evident  contradiction  faces  them, 
Luther,  in  reply,  simply  denies  our  right  to  entertain  such  ambi- 
tious aspirations  after  knowledge.  It  is  from  just  such  intellectual 
strivings  that  he  would  divert  our  attention,  in  order  to  fix  it 
upon  those  practical  religious  aspirations  whose  aim  and  object 
God  has  plainly  enough  set  before  us.  He  thus  commends  to 
us  the  fixing  of  the  eye  simply  and  directly  upon  Christ,  a  direct 
grasping  of  the  blessings  of  salvation  offered  in  the  Word  and 
sacraments.  Accordingly,  he  makes  it  now  his  own  most  solemn 
aim,  as  preacher  and  teacher,  above  all  else  to  lay  most  earnestly 
upon  the  hearts  of  all  the  objectively  proffered  grace  of  God,  in 
order  that  faith  may  thereby  be  awakened. 

We  repeat  once  more,  however,  that  there  is  nevertheless  clearly 
traceable  a  significant  modification  of  the  earlier  representations 
of  Luther  in  the  mutual  relation  of  the  two  contrasted  aspects  of 
the  subject  before  us.  The  emphasis  laid  upon  the  first  aspect 
has  now  become  so  decided,  that  it  leads  him  even  to  appropriate 
without  comment  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  announce 
it  as  the  will  of  God  that  all  men  should  be  saved.'  On  the 
other  hand,  he  now  no  longer  carries  out  the  idea  of  the  hidden 
God,  and  His  will,  to  such  conclusions  as  he  had  formerly  drawn 
from  it,  and  as  he  had  transferred  to  the  sphere  of  the  divine 
will  manifested  in  revelation.  We  no  longer  meet  the  declara- 
tions :  that  God  Himself  desires  (wills)  the  death  of  the  sinner, 
whose  life  He  professes  to  desire ;  that  God,  although,  as  incar- 
nate, weeping  over  the  destruction  of  sinners,  yet  at  the  same 
time,  simply  in  accordance  with  His  own  purpose  (Vorsatz), 
abandons  a  number  of  such  to  destruction  ;  that,  although  He  does 
not  will  sin.  He  nevertheless  ordains  it ;  that  He,  by  virtue  of 
His  own  will,  consigns  us  of  necessity  to  perdition.''  Even  in 
documents  designed  only  for  theologians,  we  no  longer  meet  with 
such  expressions.  To  the  preacher,  for  example,  who  wished  to 
know  why  not  all  would  listen  to  the  Gospel,  he  does  not  present 
the  clear  and  direct  reply  given  in  his  publication  against  Erasmus, 
but  warns  him  against  any  attempt  to  solve  the  mystery.  Finally, 
in  all   his  utterances  concerning   the   entrance  of   the  first  sin 

1  Cf.  especially,  supra,  p.  287  sqq.         ^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  492,  499, 495. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  309 

through  Adam,  Luther  carefully  refrains  from  the  suggestion  of 
any  question  which  might  lead  to  the  tracing  of  this  sin  to  the 
divine  will.'  In  view  of  all  the  above,  we  must  regard  the 
opinion  of  his  De  servo  arbitrio,  expressed  by  Luther  in  his 
letter  to  Capito,  as  referring  only  to  the  vigorous  denunciation 
of  human  power  and  human  merit  which  it  contains,  and  not  to 
its  further  and  positive  declarations  concerning  the  hidden  will 
of  God. 

We  detect  thus  a  difference  between  the  earlier  and  the  later 
doctrinal  utterances  of  Luther,  only  relative,  it  is  true,  and  some- 
what wavering,  yet  deeply  rooted  in  the  peculiar  course  through 
which  his  doctrinal  views  in  general  attained  their  maturity,  and 
in  their  inmost  character.  Luther  had  previously,  controlled 
entirely  by  his  thoroughgoing  antagonism  to  the  Pelagianism  of 
the  Romish  Church,  without  any  hesitancy  adopted,  as  the  basis 
of  such  antagonism,  metaphysical  statements  concerning  God 
and  the  divine  agency,  which  were  manifestly  derived,  not  from 
the  revealed  Word,  but  from  the  fundamental  conceptions  of 
omnipotence  and  absolute  will  as  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the 
absolute  God.  Now,  the  same  conception  of  the  reality  of  the 
proffer  of  salvation  in  the  means  of  grace  which  he  exalted  in  his 
controversy  with  the  Fanatics  made  itself  felt  in  connection 
with  his  own  doctrine  of  the  divine  being  and  attributes  to  such 
an  extent  that  he  no  longer,  as  formerly,  looked  beyond  it  to 
scrutinize  the  inscrutable  will  of  God  and  its  relation  to  the 
plan  of  salvation.  Now,  the  distinguishing  central  point  of  his 
Christian  faith,  namely,  Christ  and  the  sincere  love  of  God  mani- 
fested in  Him,  so  completely  dominated  his  entire  personal 
apprehension  and  presentation  of  doctrine  that  the  inferences 
formerly  deduced  from  the  divine  power,  lying  as  they  do  beyond 
the  sphere  of  the  general  religious  consciousness  and  the  natural 
reason,  were  driven  into  the  background — not,  indeed,  reconciled 
to  the  satisfaction  of  our  weak  powers  of  apprehension,  but  at 
least  put  to  silence — and  the  eyes  were  turned,  with  a  determined 
persistence  not  before  manifested,  away  from  the  dark  abyss  of 
mystery  to  the  blessed  light  emanating  from  the  great  central 
truth.  He  now,  whenever  our  own  speculations  show  a  tendency 
to   dwell  upon   the  questions   beyond   our   grasp,    applies   with 

'  Cf.,  on  the  other  hand,  suprn.  p.  4SS  ?n 


3IO  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

greater  logical  consistency  than  heretofore  the  principle,  that  we 
must  abide  simply  by  the  Word  of  Scripture.  And,  although  he 
yet  speaks  most  decidedly  of  the  pure  and  free  exercise  of  the 
divine  power  in  the  imparting  of  salvation,  and  that  in  such  a 
way  that  the  earlier  positions  now  no  longer  avowed  may  to  us 
appear  to  be  necessary  inferences  or  premises,  although  no 
longer  so  deduced  by  him ;  yet  it  must  now  be  evident  to  all 
that  the  controlling  thought  here  is  not  the  metaphysical  idea  of 
absolute  power  or  divine  foreknowledge,  but  an  antagonism  to 
all  human  merit  which  is  based  upon  practical  religious  interest, 
and  a  longing  desire  for  a  deliverance  proceeding  entirely  from 
God  and  thus  bearing  with  it  a  positive  assurance  for  our  faith. 

Such  is,  historically  deduced  and  apprehended,  the  position 
maintained  by  Luther.  To  pass  dogmatic  judgment  upon  it  is 
not  our  present  task.  The  points  discussed  are  among  the  most 
difficult  presented  in  the  theology  of  the  Reformer,  constituting 
perhaps  its  most  profound  problem.  We  have  dwelt  upon  them 
here  at  length,  although,  in  doing  so,  we  have  been  compelled  to 
avail  ourselves  in  some  cases  of  material  which  might  more 
appropriately  have  been  introduced  at  a  later  point.  We  were 
able  to  do  this,  partly,  because  the  subjects  found  points  of 
attachment  in  our  still  earlier  discussions  ;  and  we  were  com- 
pelled to  do  so,  as  otherwise  the  most  important  questions  con- 
cerning Luther's  doctrine  touching  the  cognizability,  nature  and 
character  of  God  must  have  been  dismembered  in  treatment.' 

2.  The  Trinity. 

REVEALED     THROUGH     INCARNATION ESTABLISHED     BY    SCRIPTURE 

OBJECTIONS    OF    REASON THE    SON    AS    WORD    AND    AS    LIKENESS 

BIRTH    OF  SON PROCESSION   OF  SPIRIT PRE-EMINENCE  OF  FATHER 

WORK  AND  ATTRIBUTES  OF  EACH  PERSON ANALOGIES  IN  NATURE. 

Through  Christ,  the  Saviour,  as  Luther  says,  are  we  to  look 
into  the  heart  of  God.     The  revelation  of  salvation  in  Christ  is 

'  The  very  excellent  and  meritorious  publications  upon  this  problem,  J. 
Miiller,  Lulheri  de  prsedest.  et  lib.  arbitrio  doctrina,  1832,  and  Lutkens, 
Luthers  Prredestinations-lelire,  1858,  while  developing  the  second-mentioned 
aspect  of  the  doctrine  with  strict  historical  impartiality,  have  not  given  the  first 
aspect  its  proper  recognition — nor  have  I  myself  given  to  this  aspect  suffi- 
cient attention  in  my  article  in  Herzog's  Theol.  Encyclop.,  viii.  614. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  3II 

the  CENTRAL  POINT  OF  VIEW  from  which  we  gain  a  further  outlook 
upon  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity.  The  revelation  of  the  latter 
"  follows,  and  bursts  upon  us,  from  the  supreme  work  of  God,"  the 
incarnation  of  His  Son  for  our  reconciliation.  No  being  inferior 
to  God  Himself  could  accomplish  such  reconciliation.  Only 
through  an  eternal,  divine  person,  having  power  over  sin  and 
death,  could  the  latter  be  blotted  out  of  existence.  But  the 
person  through  whom  the  reconciliation  was  to  be  effected  must 
be  some  other  than  the  person  of  the  Father  who  was  to  be 
reconciled.  To  this  unity  of  essence  and  this  distinction  of  per- 
sons testimony  is  borne,  according  to  Luther,  already  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  fully  in  the  New.  The  eternity  and  divinity  of 
the  Son  he  argues  particularly  from  the  creation  of  the  world 
through  the  'VVord,  or  Son — from  which  it  follows,  that  the  latter 
was,  before  the  existence  of  any  created  thing  (and  hence  before 
the  beginning  of  time,  and  eternally)  with  the  Father,  and  that, 
as  there  can  be  no  third  form  of  existence,  after  God  and  created 
things,  He  is  Himself  also  God.  In  treating  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
Luther  dwells  especially  upon  the  intimate  connection  of  faith 
in  the  full  divinity  of  the  Spirit  with  the  inmost  character  of  the 
entire  faith  and  life  of  Christianity ;  whilst  he  at  the  same  time 
deduces  from  the  language  of  Scripture  a  personal  difference 
between  the  Spirit  and  the  Father  and  Son.  Moreover,  that  which 
is  said  to  be  accomplished  by  the  Spirit  can,  according  to  Luther, 
be  effected  only  by  God,  e.  g.,  the  inward  illumination  of  the 
heart,  the  awakening  of  faith,  the  strengthening  of  the  conscience 
against  the  terrors  of  the  devil  and  all  created  things.  The 
Spirit  is  therefore  also  the  real  and  true  God.  The  saying  of 
Jesus  :  "  He  will  take  of  mine  "  (John  xvi.  15)^  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  furnishing  further  evidence.  We  are  not  to  imagine  a 
part  severed  from  the  deity.  The  latter  does  not  in  any  case 
allow  itself  to  be  divided  into  parts ;  but  where  there  is  one  part 
that  belongs  to  God,  there  the  entire  divinity  is  assuredly  present. 
Among  the  principal  proof- passages  for  the  position  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  "  a  different  {unterschiedene)  and  other  person 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  "  are  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  in  the 
Gospel  of  John,  concerning  the  procession  and  mission  of  the 
Spirit,  His  character  as  the  Comforter,  etc.  He  regards  as  of 
special  weight  the  revelation  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  It  is 
evident,  on  this  occasion,  that  the  Spirit  who  descends  in  visible 


312  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

form  is  "  something  other  in  His  person  than  either  the  Father 
or  the  Son."  Luther  also  stoutly  maintained  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  proceeds,  not  alone  from  the  Father,  but  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  This  he  argues  from  the  utterances  of  Scripture 
above  referred  to,  regarded  as  revealing  the  relation  between  the 
persons  within  the  Trinity.  It  is  thus  by  the  Son,  according  to 
John  XV.  26,  that  the  Spirit  is  sent,  although  He  at  the  same 
time  proceeds  from  the  Father.  His  being  sent  is  the  same 
thing  as  His  proceeding.  According  to  John  xvi.  15,  He  receives 
His  divine  nature  in  eternity,  not  alone  from  the  Father,  but 
also  from  the  Son.  The  same  thing  is  proved  by  the  designation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  adoption  as,  at  the  same  time,  the  Spirit  of 
Christ.  And  it  is  just  here  that  we  may  note  the  deep  signifi- 
cance in  the  matter  of  the  Christian's  salvation  which  lies,  for 
Luther,  in  this  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Son  :  for  the  office 
of  the  Spirit  must,  accordingly,  be  nothing  else  than  to  glorify 
Christ,  and  hence  we  become  partakers  of  the  Spirit  whenever 
we  lay  hold  upon  Christ  in  faith.  In  this  tiinity  of  persons, 
however,  God  is,  for  him,  "  one  most  simple  essence  " — a  God 
"  most  simple  in  simplicity  and  most  one  {imissuiia)  in  unity.  "^ 
Luther  evidently  never  entertained  any  doubt  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  as  firmly  established  in  the  Church,  was  required 
BY  THE  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES  and  by  the  entire  con- 
sensus of  scriptural  Christian  faith.  Nor  did  he  at  any  time  fail 
to  insist  in  his  sermons  upon  those  propositions  concerning  the 
nature  of  God  in  which  he  recognized  the  objective  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  salvation.  He  was  early  stimulated  to  greater  zeal  in 
the  presentation  of  these  doctrines  by  his  fears  of  a  fresh  out- 
break of  the  Arian  heresy.  He,  at  a  later  dav,  more  distinctly 
asserts  that  danger  in  this  direction  is  to  be  apprehended,  espe- 
cially from  the  Italian  grammarians,  or  rhetoricians,  and  also  from 
certain  German-Italian  serpents — from  Epicureans  and  sceptics. 
On  the  other  hand,  says  he,  this  article  has  remained  pure  in  the 
Papacy  and  among  the  scholastic  theologians,  so  that  we  have 
with  them  here  no  controversy.^  We  have  already  called  atten- 
tion to  his  decided  adoption,  especially,  of  the  Athanasian  symbol. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  5  sq  ;  x,  165  sqq.  ;  xi,  246  sq.  ;  xv,  134  sqq. ;  xlv,  295  sqq., 
315  sqq.;  xvi,  213. — xlix,  390  sq. ;  1,94;  ix,  6.  Briefe,  iv,  550.  Erl.  Ed., 
1,  92,  83  ;  vii,  274.     Op.  Ex.,  vi,  35,  327. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  336.     Briefe,  iv,  427  sq.     Eil.  Ed.,  xxxvii,  53. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  313 

At  the  same  time,  he  dismisses  all  the  objections  of  reason, 
and  reminds  his  readers  that  we  must  here  speak  with  new 
tongues.'  Thus  the  unity  of  God  is,  for  him,  a  unity  of  an 
entirely  peculiar  kind,  with  no  parallel  anywhere  among  created 
things,  higher  than  mathematical  unity.  He  confesses,  however, 
at  the  same  time,  that  human  terms  and  ecclesastical  formulae 
are,  in  any  event,  incapable  of  expressing  it.  We  can  only, 
says  he,  prattle  like  little  children  about  these  things.  It  would 
even  be  better  that  all  the  subtle  expressions  concerning  the 
distinctions  of  the  persons  in  the  unity  of  essence  and  agency 
should  be  confined  to  the  schools,  if  the  efforts  of  the  devil  to 
spread  heresy  did  not  make  it  necessary,  especially  for  teachers, 
to  discuss  them  publicly.  If  any  one  still  find  them  too  difficult, 
let  him,  with  the  children,  stick  to  the  catechism.  It  is  no 
wonder  if  our  thoughts  sometimes  go  astray  as  we  ponder  these 
questions,  or  our  words  miss  the  mark ;  and  such  splinters  will 
not  harm  us,  if  we  only  cling  firmly  to  the  foundation  of  our 
faith  :  Three  persons  in  the  one  Godhead ;  each  person  perfect 
God ;  the  persons  not  commingled ;  the  essence  not  divided. 
Of  the  attempts  of  a  Scotus  and  others  to  make  the  doctrine 
more  acceptable  to  reason  by  the  conception  of  "  formal  and 
real  distinctions,"  etc.,  Luther  will  hear  nothmg.  Dialectics 
must  here  keep  silence.'^  We  find  him  referring  several  times 
to  the  scholastic  question,  whether  it  should  be  held,  with  Peter 
the  Lombard,  that  "  divine  essence  neither  is  begotten  nor 
begets."  In  one  of  his  early  writings,  he  cites  this  maxim  as  an 
example  of  empty  human  ordinances.  Later,  as  casually  re- 
marked above,  he  declares  the  conclusion,  that  the  essence 
begets,  a  false  one.  Still  later,  he  again  declares  that  the  Lom- 
bard was  not  justified  in  defending  that  proposition,  but  should 
have  considered  that  the  term  "  essence  "  in  this  doctrine  is  to  be 
understood  relatively.  We  may  infer  his  own  tendency  from  the 
added  remark,  that  there  was  no  occasion  to  make  such  an 
outcry  over  this  one  word.^ 

Of  such  philosophical  ventures  of  his  own  as  we  found  in  the 
Cliristmas  Sermon  of  A.  D.  ijij,'^  we  afterwards  find  no  trace 

1  Vid.  supra,  p.  267. 

*  Jena,  i,  572  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  iv,    137;   xxxvii,  45,  53. 

^  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  330  sqq.     Jen.,  i,  567  b,  572.  *  Vol.  I.,  p.  128  sqq. 


314  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

in  Luther's  writings.  He  seeks  to  abide  simply  by  the  Scrip- 
tures. Starting,  however,  with  the  same  utterances  of  Scripture 
upon  which  his  argument  was  then  based,  we  find  him  afterwards 
continually  striving  to  attain  a  rich,  vivid  and  profound  portrayal 
of  the  relationship  within  the  Trinity,  especially  of  the  relation 
between  the  Son  and  the  Father,  as  suggested  by  the  idea  of  the 
express  image,  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  etc.  He  says, 
further,  of  these  scriptural  declarations  themselves,  as  also,  for 
example,  of  the  expressions,  "  mission,  procession  of  the  Spirit," 
that  they  aim  to  give  us  the  truth  in  pictures.  The  three  persons 
are  represented  to  us  through  comparisons  or  pictures  of  natural 
things,  so  that  we  may  in  our  weakness  grasp  the  ideas  and  speak 
of  them — may  not  fathom  nor  comprehend  them,  but  only  hold 
by  faith  to  the  words  of  revelation.' 

He  regards  of  special  importance  in  gaining  a  proper  concep- 
tion of  the  Son,  the  description  of  Him  by  John  as  the  Word." 
We  are  here  to  think  of  a  conversation  of  God  within  Himself, 
just  as  a  man  may  continually  have  a  word,  conversation,  or 
thought  with  himself  in  his  heart.  And  he  speaks  especially  of 
the  conversation  of  the  human  heart,  as  moved  by  love,  anger, 
joy  or  sorrow.  Here,  says  he,  we  find  even  in  ourselves  a  power- 
ful and  violent  conversation.  Our  heart  is  entirely  carried  away 
with  love  or  anger.  We  cannot  with  our  senses  attain  to  the 
height  or  magnitude  of  the  word  of  the  heart.  Man  cannot 
himself  pour  out  his  whole  heart.  Yet  this  is,  after  all,  only  a 
very  weak  and  dim  illustration  of  the  Word  of  God.  This 
includes  the  entire  God,  is  as  great  and  perfect  as  God  Himself, 
yea,  is  God  Himself. 

Yet  this  Word  is,  at  the  same  time,  personally  discriminated 
from  (lOd.  For  this  purpose  He  employs,  as  an  illustration,  the 
word  of  man  as  a  spoken  word.  The  word  and  he  who  utters  it 
are  not  one  person.  Thus  John  says  :  "  The  ^^'ord  was  7vith 
God."  He  is  another  person  than  the  Father,  with  whom  He 
was.  We,  with  the  Fathers,  employ  to  express  this  the  term, 
"  person  "  ;  for  we  have  no  other  suitable  term,  and  it  means 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  I,  83. 

"^  For  subsequent  context,  compare  especially  Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  295  sqq. ;  x,  165 
sqq. ;  xv,  134  sqq.  ;  xxiii,  270  sqq.  ;  vii,  188  sqq.  Cf.  also  again  the  Christ- 
mas sermon. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  315 

nothing  more  than  a  "  hypostasis,'^  a  being  (  fVesen)  or  essence 
(^Su/>sta/iz),  which  exists  of  itself  and  which  is  God. 

Luther  finds  the  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Father  and  Son 
also,  according  to  John  xvi.  13,  set  forth  in  this  conversation  of 
God  within  Himself.'  Where  there  is  a  speaker  and  a  word, 
there  should  also  be  a  hearer.  This  is  here  the  Holy  Spirit. 
And  the  speaking,  the  being  spoken,  and  the  hearing,  all  occur 
within  the  divine  nature. 

With  the  idea  of  the  Word  is  immediately  connected  that 
of  the  LIKENESS.  Every  word  is  a  sign,  which  signifies  some- 
thing. The  word  of  man  carries  with  it  the  nature  of  the  heart, 
although  of  course  only  symbolically.  The  speech  is  an  image, 
or  likeness,  of  the  heart.  In  the  case  of  God,  that  which  is 
signified  is  also  entirely  and  essentially  in  the  sign,  or  in  the 
Word  and  image.  In  God,  the  Word  carries  the  whole  nature 
with  it. 

By  this  Word,  furthermore,  were  all  things  created,  as  John 
teaches  :  "  In  Him  was  life,"  etc.  Luther  pursues  the  line  of 
these  declarations  further,  adducing  the  statements  of  Prov.  viii. 
concerning  Creative  Wisdom,  which  he  considers  identical  with 
the  Son,  or  Word.  But  he  refuses  to  entertain  the  idea  that  the 
Word  is,  in  accordance  with  the  declaration,  "  In  Him  was  life," 
an  image  of  all  creatures,  or,  as  it  were,  a  store-house  of  images 
or  ideas,  in  accordance  with  which  the  whole  creation  has  been 
framed.  The  Gospel,  says  he,  speaks  as  plainly  as  possible,  and 
does  not  attempt  to  lead  us  into  such  minute  and  subtle  studies. 

Later,  however,  in  his  exposition  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  the 
creation,  he  accepts  also  this  idea :  **  The  Son  has  in  Himself 
*     *     *     also  a  pattern  of  all  created  things."  ^ 

The  significance  which  Luther  attaches  to  the  Word  brings  us 
again  to  consider  in  a  very  special  way  the  significance  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  the  Saviour.  Here  the  Word  spoken  of  has 
become  man,  with  whom  and  in  whom  the  very  heart  of  God 
has  "poured  itself  out."  Finally,  Luther  refers''  to  the  oral 
Word  of  Gospel  preaching  in  illustrating  the  character  of  the  Son 
as  the  Word.  John,  as  a  sermon  of  the  Church  Postils  *  declares, 
employed  the  figure  of  the  Word  to  describe  the  Son,  in  order 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  82  sq.  2  Op.  Ex.,  i,  62  sq. 

3  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  iz8.  *  Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  140  s.q. 


3*1 6  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

to  involve  the  oral  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  and  to  indicate  its 
glory  and  power.  God  Himself  is  present  with  the  Word  in  the 
mouth  of  man,  by  virtue  of  which  the  souls  who  believe  it  are 
transported  into  life  eternal. 

The  idea  of  the  image,  and,  what  to  Luther  is  the  same  thing, 
the  "  brightness  of  the  glory,"  of  God  is  developed  by  Luther 
particularly  in  the  direction  suggested  by  Heb.  i.  3.  He  then, 
further,  "  with  all  ancient  Fathers,"  embraces  also  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  simile  of  the  radiance  which  comes,  beyond  ques- 
tion, from  the  sun.  The  Fathers,  says  he,  compared  the  Father 
to  the  sun,  the  Son  to  the  radiance,  the  Spirit  to  the  heat. 

The  fundamental  characteristic  of  the  Second  Person  always 
continues  to  be,  that  He  is  "  the  Son,"  begoiten,  or  born,  by 
the  Father ;  and  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  He  proceeds 
from  the  Father  and  Son.  The  divine  sonship  finds  an  imperfect 
illustration  in  the  ordinary  relation  of  father  and  son.  An  earthly 
son  receives  his  being  (nature)  from  an  earthly  father,  but  only 
in  part,  whereas  God  the  Father  gives  to  the  Son  the  entire 
divine  nature.  The  vSon  is  begotten  of  the  Father  (Ps.  ii.  7) 
"  eternally  without  interruption  ";  for  before  God,  as  Augustine 
rightly  declares,  there  is  neither  past  nor  future,  but  all  things 
are  eternally  present.  We  may  hence  also  say  :  "  The  Son  is 
always  being  born  of  the  Father."  With  this  eternal  attribute 
of  the  Son,  /.  e.,  that  He  is  begotten,  or  born,  and  that  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  /.  <?.,  that  He  proceeds,  corresponds  also,  according 
to  Luther,  the  manner  in  which  both  are  revealed  and  present 
themselves  in  bodily  manifestation.  The  Son,  who  is  born  in 
eternity,  is  also  born  in  the  flesh ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  "  pro- 
ceeds "  in  the  form  of  the  dove,  the  fiery  tongues,  etc.  On 
this  account  it  was  most  suitable  that,  not  the  first  nor  the  third, 
but  precisely  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead,  should  be  born 
in  the  flesh.' 

All  these  three  persons  have,  therefore,  a  single  nature.  In 
each  is  the  entire  Ciodhead.  But,  at  the  same  time,  Luther 
again  lays  great  emphasis  upon  the  statement,  "  that  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit  nei^ertheless  have  what  they  hai'e  and  are  from  the 
Father.''     Thus,  the  Son  is  God  and  Creator  like  the   Father, 

^  Ell.  Ed.,  xxiii,  26S  sqq. ;  xlv,  295  ;  vii,  189,  199.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  72  sqq. 
Jena,  i,  573  b. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  317 

but  He  receives  (has)  all  this  from  the  Father,  whereas  the 
Father  does  not  receive  (have)  it  from  the  Son.  In  this  he 
finds  the  reason  why  the  terms  "  God,  Almighty,  Creator,"  are, 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  placed  In  connection  with  the  Father, 
and  not  with  the  Son  or  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  designed  in  this  way  to 
indicate  that  the  Fathek  is  the  origin,  or  source,  of  the  God- 
head. From  this  he  draws  conclusions,  also,  as  to  the  appropriate 
form  of  address  in  prayer.  Some  people  are  perplexed,  says  he, 
to  know  whether  they,  in  the  "  Our  Father,"  address  the  person 
of  the  Father,  or  the  entire  divine  Being.  Such  should  firmly 
believe  that  what  God  does  to  His  creatures,  is  done  by  all  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead  without  any  distinction — that,  as  the 
Father,  so  also  are  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  inseparable 
unity,  our  God  and  our  Father — that,  consequently,  we  may 
rightfully  address  also  Christ  in  this  way,  just  as  the  Church  sings 
of  the  Holy  Spirit :  '■^Vcni pater  paupei-uin.^''  But  it  is  neverthe- 
less more  appropriate  to  observe,  and  not  despise,  the  order  of  tlie 
peisons,  as  the  apostles  do,  and  after  them  the  Church,  naming 
the  person  of  the  Father  in  prayer,  as  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  etc. 
He  is  the  origin,  or  fountain,  of  the  divinity  in  the  Son  and 
the  Spirit,  and  when  He  is  mentioned  they  must  also  be  under- 
stood to  be  included.  Thus  speak  Peter  and  Paul :  "  Blessed 
be  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ";  and  Christ  Him- 
self, in  the  Gospel,  always  gives  the  place  of  pre-eminence  to  the 
Father,  and  ascribes  all  things  to  Him,  although  He  at  the  same 
time  says  :  "  All  that  the  Father  has  is  mine."  ' 

We  have  been  confining  our  attention  to  the  relations  existing 
within  the  Trinity :  the  last  remark  leads  us  into  the  sphere  of 
the  operations  of  the  Trinity  upon  things  without  itself. 
These  "  opera  ad  extra  "  are,  as  Luther  holds  in  harmony  with 
the  teachers  of  the  Church,  "  undivided."  That  is  to  say,  what- 
ever has  been  created  was  made  by  God  the  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit  together,  as  one  single  God.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
proposition  :  "  That,  in  relation  to  created  things,  not  more  than 
One  God  is  to  be  reckoned."  Creating  is  thus  a  work  of  the 
entire  divine  majesty.  Even  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  created 
by  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  although  the  person  of  the  Son 
alone  entered  into  union  with  it.     Thus,  also,  was  the  dove  which 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvii,  51-60;  iv,  145. 


3l8  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

appeared  at  the  baptism  of  Christ  created  by  the  entire  Trinity, 
although  the  Holy  Ghost  alone  descended  in  its  form.  We  must 
here  discriminate  between  creatures  or  works  regarded  absolutely, 
or  as  they  are .  essentially,  and  the  same  works  or  creatures 
regarded  relatively,  or  as  God  uses  them  in  His  dealings  with  us, 
/.  e.,  as  signs.  No  less  are  the  satisfaction  for  sin,  which  we 
attribute  to  Christ,  and  the  bestowal  of  life,  which  we  ascribe  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  works  of  the  One  God. 

Luther  would,  nevertheless,  have  us  designate  some  of  the  works 
which  thus  all  belong  in  common  to  the  entire  Godhead  to  the 
Father,  as  His  particular  {soiulerlicli)  work,  others  to  the  Son, 
and  others  to  the  Spirit,  as,  respectively,  their  particular  works ; 
and  these  special  works  are  to  be  a  standing  testimony  that  we 
are  not  to  commingle  nor  confuse  the  persons  in  the  Trinity. 
Thus,  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  creation  is  announced  in  connection 
with  the  person  of  the  Father;  in  connection  with  the  person  of 
the  Son,  we  think  of  redemption ;  and  in  connection  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  we  mention  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  bestowal  of  life. 
The  peculiar  nature  of  the  work  which  is  ascribed  to  the  Son,  or 
to  the  Spirit,  in  imison  with  the  other  persons,  corresponds,  as 
we  have  seen,  with  the  peculiar  mode  by  which  the  Son  entered 
the  humanity  of  Jesus,  and  the  peculiar  way,  connected  also  with 
outward  signs,  by  which  the  Spirit  proceeded  into  the  world ;  and 
these  latter  modes  of  entrance,  again,  correspond  with  the  pre- 
ceding inter-trinitarian  acts — the  eternal  generation  and  proces- 
sion. The  designation  of  the  Father  as  the  almighty  Creator  is, 
as  we  have  seen,  traced  directly  to  the  inter-trinitarian  relation- 
ship, the  creation  being,  "  as  the  first  work  of  the  divine  majesty 
toward  created  things,"  attributed  to  the  Father,  since  He  is  also 
in  the  Trinity  the  first  person  and  the  source  for  the  Son  and 
Spirit.^  Luther  has  in  no  passage  attempted  to  give  more  accu- 
rate definitions  of  the  marks  of  difference  between  these  works 
of  the  three  persons,  eiTected,  as  he  maintained  with  particular 
emphasis,  by  the  One  God. 

From  the  discussion  of  the  "  opera  ad  extra,''^  more  specifically 
from  the  idea  of  the  co-operation  of  the  entire  Trinity  in  the 
work  of  creation,  Luther  advances  to  the  ascription  of  separate 
ATiRiBUTES  Specially  to  the  separate  persons,  although  the  former 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvii,  42  sqq. ;  xvi,  79;  iv,  145  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  319 

all  really  belong  to  each  of  the  persons.  His  statements  of  this 
kind  relating  to  the  Son  are  based  upon  that  which  he  had 
already  found  embraced  in  the  conception  of  the  "  Word,"  and 
carry  out  the  idea  still  further.  And,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
similar  definitions  of  Augustine  and  other  ancient  teachers,  to 
whom  he  himself  appeals,  this  differentiation  of  the  attributes 
became  merged  in  a  general  conception  of  the  three  persons  as 
three  fundamental  elements  {Grundviomenteii)  of  One  personal 
spirit  and  life.  In  relation  to  the  work  of  creation  in  particular, 
power  is  predicated  pre-eminently  of  the  Father.  In  the  Son, 
through  whom  all  things  are  created,  wisdom  is  represented.  The 
Word  is  the  eternal  counsel  of  the  Father ;  and  we  may,  with 
the  ancients,  designate  the  Father  in  His  relation  to  the  Son, 
mens,  while  the  Son  is  intellectus.  To  the  Holy  Ghost  may  be 
applied  the  declarations  occurring  in  the  narrative  of  the  crea- 
tion, that  God  regarded  as  good  the  world  created  through  the 
Word,  had  pleasure  in  it,  blessed  it.  This  good-pleasure,  or 
complacency,  is  nothing  else  than  that  God  preserves  created 
things  and  stands  by  them.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  preserva- 
tion and  life  of  all  things.  The  Scriptures  ascribe  to  Him  life 
and  goodness  (benevolence).  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Father's 
complacency,  as  the  Word  is  his  eternal  counsel.  "  Pater  est 
mens,  filiiis  intellectus,  spiritus  sanctiis  voluntas:'' 

In  harmony  with  these  conceptions,  Luther  finds  in  all  separate 
created  things  hints  and  analogies  of  the  Trinity.  To  the 
Father,  the  almighty  Creator,  he  traces  the  essence,  or  nature, 
{substantia)  oi  every  creature.  To  the  Son,  who  is  the  image 
of  God,  or  in  whom  is  displayed  "  exemplar  divinae  majestatis," 
and  who,  further,  has  in  Himself  the  "  exemplar  omnium  rerum 
creatarum,'"  he  traces  the  form  {forma,  species)  and  beauty  of 
all  things.  To  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  traces  the  usefulness  {A^utzcn) 
of  created  things,  or  their  power  and  goodness.  Varying  some- 
what from  this  classification,  we  find  him  declaring,  in  a  passage 
presented  in  the  Tischreden  :  Every  flower  points  to  the  Trinity, 
inasmuch  as  its  form  represents  God  the  Father  and  His  power; 
its  odor  and  taste  the  Son  and  His  wisdom ;  its  virtues  and 
effects,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  His  goodness.  In  general,  LuTher 
regards  it  a  delightful  mental  occupation  {jucunda  cogitatio)  to 
seek  everywhere,  and  in  entirely  diverse  spheres,  for  a  triplicity 
which  may   contain   traces,  or  hints,  of   the  Trinity.     Thus,  he 


320  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

recalls  the  maxim  of  the  Lombard  :  "  All  things  are  arranged  in 
weight,  measure  and  number — in  dimension,  there  is  line,  surface 
and  bulk — in  philosophy,  existence,  reality  and  unity  (^ens, 
verum  et  ufiie??i).''  In  the  Tischredai,\vt  adduces  still  further 
illustrations  :  "  In  rivers,  there  is  substance,  current  and  power ; 
in  astronomy,  motion,  light  and  influence ;  in  rhetoric,  arrange- 
ment, elocution  and  action,  or  gesture ;  in  logic,  definition, 
division  and  argument — even  in  music,  three  notes.  Re,  Mi,  Fa," 
etc.  Yet  Luther  never  attempts  to  define  more  sharply  such 
ideas  and  hints,  to  develop  them  more  fully,  nor  to  harmonize 
them  with  one  another.  He  never  thinks  of  employing  them  in 
evidence.  We  have  here  cited  them  only  because  they  reveal  to 
us  how  thoroughly  his  entire  apprehension  of  religious  truth  was 
interpenetrated  with  thoughts  of  the  Trinity,  and  how  strongly 
inclined  he  was  to  trace  all  things  else  back  to  this  conception, 
which  was  for  him,  beyond  all  else,  the  foundation  of  the  true 
doctrine  of  salvation.' 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  62  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  35;   x,  167.     Jena,  i,  574.     Op.  Ex., 
V,  304  sq. ;  iv,  1 90.     Tischr.,  i,  299  sq.  (cf.  also  84.) 


CHAPTER  III. 

CREATION   AND    PROVIDENCE. 

OUT   OF    NOTHING TIME    BEGINS CREATION    FINISHED PROVIDENCE 

MAN ANGELS MIRACLES PORTENTS DEVIL  AND  EVIL  ANGELS. 

Luther's  conception  of  God  always  directly  involved  the  idea 
that  God  is  in  Himself  eternal,  perfect  and  self-sufificient,  and 
has  no  need  of  a  world  for  His  own  sake.  He  did  not,  there- 
fore, find  it  necessary  to  maintain  and  develop  this  thought  only 
when  brought  to  face  the  representations  of  pantheistic  philoso- 
phy. No  less  firm  was  his  conviction  that  the  world,  in  its 
dependence  upon  God,  has  an  actual  existence  of  its  own. 
Never,  even  when  most  fully  under  the  influence  of  German 
Mysticism,  would  he  consent  to  regard  the  finite  as  a  mere 
semblance,  or  appearance.'  The  relation  in  which  the  world, 
in  the  view  of  Luther,  thus  stands  to  God  is  revealed  to  us  in 
his  doctrine  of  its  preservation  and  government  by  this  God. 
The  main  stress  is  always  laid  upon  the  fact  that  God  Himself 
is  the  efficient  agent  in  all  things  {der  AUwirkende).  The 
world  has  been  called  into  existence  simply  through  His  will 
and  power,  and  is,  with  all  its  separate  elements,  continually 
sustained  by  that  almighty  agency,  in  which  He  is  Himself 
present  in  everything.  But  for  the  world,  when  once  created, 
Luther  nevertheless  maintains  also  specifically  and  emphatically 
the  mediate  exertion  of  God's  agency  in  accordance  with  His 
own  design  through  the  creatures  created  and  preserved  by  Him 
— a  general  mediation,  which  is  afterwards  made  to  include  the 
mediation  of  salvation  through  the  Word,  sacraments  and  Church. 

The  leading  principles  in  regard  to  the  work  of  creation  are, 
in  Luther,  as  in  all  theologians  of  the  Church,  that  the  world  was 
CREATED  OUT  OF  NOTHING,  and  that  with  its  creation  time  began. 
He,  in  one  passage,  declares  that  the  article  upon  the  creation 

1  "Vol.  I.,  p.  144. 
21  (321) 


322  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

out  of  nothing  is  even  harder  to  beUeve  than  that  of  the  incarna- 
tion ;  but  here,  too,  reason  must  keep  silence.  With  respect  to 
the  relation  of  the  world  to  time,  he  says  that  reason  can  rise  no 
higher  than  to  the  thought  that  the  world  is  eternal,  and  that, 
before  and  after  us,  men  follow  one  another  in  endless  progres- 
sion (hence:  "/rogressus  in  infinitum''''^.  But,  he  adds,  from 
the  same  premises  we  should  be  compelled  to  argue  also  the 
mortality  of  the  soul,  since  reason  recognizes  nothing  else  as 
unending  (only  the  endlessness  of  the  entire  series,  within  which 
all  individual  existence  follows  in  the  supposed  endless  progres- 
sion). Nevertheless,  he,  upon  occasion,  speaks  without  hesitancy 
of  a  "  time  "  when  there  was  as  yet  no  time.  But  he  pronounces 
as  presumption  the  inquiries  as  to  what  there  was  before  time, 
or  beyond  its  scope,  or  what  God  did  before  time  began.  We 
should  therefore  consider  that  "  God  was  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world  incomprehensible  in  His  essential  repose ;  but  now, 
since  the  creation.  He  is  within,  beyond  and  above  all  creatures, 
that  is,  He  is  likewise  incomprehensible."  That  which  lies 
beyond  the  bounds  of  time  is,  in  any  event,  incomprehensible  to 
our  minds.'  As  to  the  six  days  of  creation,  he  holds  simply  to 
the  words  of  Moses — particularly  against  those  who  would  inter- 
pret the  days  allegorically.  If  any  one  cannot  understand  why 
God  occupied  just  these  periods  of  time,  he  need  do  no  more 
than  simply  confess  his  ignorance.  He  himself  finds  the  course 
of  God  in  taking  time  for  the  creative  work  illustrated  in  His 
present  mode  of  bringing  children  into  existence.'' 

Luther  further  declares,  in  harmony  with  the  Mosaic  narrative, 
that  God  at  that  time  "  finished  "  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
(Gen.  ii.  i ).  That  is  to  say,  God  now  rested,  in  the  sense,  that 
He  created  no' other  heavens  and  no  other  earth.  At  the  creation, 
moreover,  He  already  uttered  for  all  time  the  command  :  "  Let 
the  earth  bring  forth  grass,  beasts,"  etc.,  and  :  "  Multiply,  fill  land 
and  sea."  It  is  through  the  power  of  these  words  that  the  multi- 
plication of  all  creatures  has  proceeded,  and  shall  continue  as 
long  as  the  world  shall  stand.  It  was  only,  according  to  Luther, 
on  account  of  sin,  which  entered  the  world  after  its  creation  by 
God,  that  God  has  since  the  beginning  created  anything  new ; 
as,  for  example,  thorns  and  thistles  upon  the  fields,  the  diseases 

1  Jena,  i,  574  b.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  8,  15  sq.       ^Op.  Ex.,i,  9.     Erl.  Ed.,xxxiii,  30. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  323 

of  men,  the  power  of  wild  beasts,  the  form  of  the  once  upright 
but  now  crawling  serpent.  These  would  not  have  been  created 
if  man  had  remained  in  the  state  of  innocence.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  these  consequences  of  sin,  therefore,  "  all  things  were  at 
the  original  creation  so  constituted  in  their  general  character 
and  relations  as  they  were  always  to  remain."  God  finished  His 
work,  /.  c,  He  ceased  from  establishing  ordinances.' 

Yet  Luther  was  always  accustomed  to  insist,  with  the  greatest 
possible  emphasis,  that  God  does  not  therefore  turn  aside  from 
Hi^.  work  like  a  laborer  when  the  day's  task  is  done ;  nor  do  all 
things  now  come  to  pass  of  themselves ;  but  all  things  are  still 
PRESERVED,  QUICKENED  AND  GOVERNED  Only  by  His  perpetually- 
working  power,  in  which  He  Himself  remains  ever  present  with 
them.  All  our  power,  says  he,  is  made  powerful  by  God,  who 
is  an  incomprehensible  power.  God  is  near  our  powers  with  His 
own  power,  near  our  life  with  His  incomprehensible  life,  near 
the  light  of  our  reason  with  His  incomprehensible  light.  (Cf. 
Acts  xvii.  28;  Jer.  xxiii.  23.)'"  With  God,  he  even  maintains, 
this  His  preservative  power  and  His  creative  agency  are  essentially 
one,  declaring  directly  :  "  We  Christians  know  that,  with  God,  to 
create  and  to  preserve  are  the  same  thing."  * 

Hence,  as  called  into  existence  by  God,  all  created  things 
ARE  GOOD.  None  of  them  dare  man  in  his  pride  abuse  nor 
reproach.  All  are  with  man,  according  to  Ps.  cxlviii.  7,  to  praise 
the  Lord.  God  regards,  preserves  and  adorns  even  the  most 
insignificant  things,  such  as  the  grass  and  flowers,  which  are 
created  only  to  last  for  a  day  or  two  and  then  wither  away. 
He  "  upholds  "  them,  moreover.  That  is  to  say,  He  does  not 
push  and  drive  and  shout;  but  He  upholds  them  tenderly, 
permits  them  to  enjoy  His  tender  mercy,  governs  them  all 
sweetly  and  gently.  Luther  often,  especially,  in  the  Tischreden, 
reveals  his  own  fervent  delight  in  the  contemplation,  in  even  the 
most  unattractive  creatures,  of  the  goodness  and  wisdom  and 
glory  of  his  God.  Thus  he  admires  the  "  most  beautiful  form  " 
which  even  mice  and  flies  have,  each  after  its  kind.  We  look 
upon  the  wonderful  works  of  God,  says  he,  and  yet  we  cannot 
understand  what  we  see.* 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  93-98. 

■■^  Supra,  p.  281  sq.      Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  321  sqq.  ;  x,  188.        ^  Op.  Ex.,  v,  230. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  243  sq. ;  xliii,  248  sqq.  ;  vii,  192.      Op.  Ex.,  i,  65  sq. 


324  .    THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Yet  Luther  notes,  at  the  same  time,  a  difference  among  things 
created,  and  in  the  relation  of  God  to  them.  The  most  exalted 
of  them  all,  and  more  excellent  than  heaven  and  earth  with  all 
that  is  therein,  is  man,  who  was  created  for  "  participation  "  in 
the  Deity  and  in  eternal  life.  For  his  sake  have  all  other  things 
been  created.  He  is  the  special  object  of  the  divine  care.  Men 
are  to  call  God  their  Father,  and  to  be  called  His  children.  In 
this,  they  are  especially  authorized  to  rejoice,  who  are  really 
through  Christ  in  faith  united  with  God,  /.  ^.,  true  Christians.  The 
central  position  in  Luther's  entire  apprehension  of  created  things 
(the  work  of  creation,  providence  and  government  of  the  world)  is 
thus  assigned  to  the  human  race — viewed  as  created  for  fellowship 
with  God,  together  with  the  redemptive  work  through  which  they, 
though  fallen,  may  attain  such  fellowship — and  the  congregation 
of  Christ,  in  which  God  already  has  His  own  peculiar  people. 
Of  believers  and  the  congregation,  or  Church,  Luther  then  says  : 
They  are  the  lords  of  all  things,  whom  all  things  must  serve. 
They  are  in  the  sight  of  God  more  than  heaven  and  earth.  For 
their  sakes  God  still  preserves  and  blesses  the  rest  of  the  world 
despite  its  depravity  in  sin.  Yea,  "  the  Church  is  the  only  con- 
servator (conservatrix)  of  all  things."  ' 

But  in  designating  man  the  best  and  most  exalted  of  created 
things,  Luther  leaves  temporarily  out  of  view  another,  and  super- 
earthly  class  of  beings,  which  he  finally,  when  including  them 
within  the  scope  of  his  thought,  designates  as  the  "  most  exalted 
creatures,"  namely,  the  angels.  We  must  assign  them  their 
place  in  Luther's  theology  under  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
government  of  the  world.  To  their  care  God  commends  the 
creatures  which  He  has  created  and  preserves,  "  in  order  that 
they  may  gather  them  in  from  without,  lead,  preserve,  protect 
and  help  them,  and  especially  men."  In  view  of  this  their  ofifice 
— as  messengers  sent  from  God — they  are  called  angels.  As  to 
their  nature  and  origin,  it  is  held  that  it  was  only  in  connection 
with  the  creation  of  the  world,  and  hence  not  until  after  the 
"beginning"  (Gen.  i.  i  and  John  i.  i),  that  they  were  created.^ 

^Op.  Ex.,  i,  144.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  1.  c.  ;  xliii,  1.  c.  Vol.  I.,  p.  415  sqq. 
Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  290;  xii,  287.     Op.  Ex.,  viii,  285  ;  x,  362. 

'  Cf.,  also  Op.  Ex.,  i,  29  sq.:  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  angels  are  created 
beings;  but  concerning  their  creation,  and  concerning  their  insurrection 
(pugna)  and  fall,  nothing  whatever  is  found  in  the  Scriptures,  except  what 
Christ  says  in  Jn.   viii.  44,  etc. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  325 

Although  revealing  themselves  to  us  in  human  form,  they  are 
simply  spirits.  In  moral  character,  they,  like  man,  were  at  first 
not  so  confirmed  that  they  could  not  have  sinned  ;  and  the  devil, 
for  example,  did  not  abide  in  the  truth.  But  those  of  them 
which  did  not  share  in  his  fall,  then  became  so  firmly  established 
in  character  that  they  can  no  longer  sin.  They  are  now  jjerfect 
patterns  of  proper  bearing  toward  the  Creator.  Full  of  light  and 
fire,  as  we  witness  especially  in  connection  with  the  birth  of 
Christ,  they  give  all  glory  to  God  alone  and  none  to  themselves, 
just  as  becomes  humble,  pure,  obedient  hearts.  In  their  bearing 
towards  us,  they  illustrate  plainly  the  condescending  love  of  God, 
whom  they  serve.  An  angel  is  a  noble,  kind  heart,  with  a  gentle 
will,  so  humble  as  to  minister  to  even  the  most  miserable  sinners. 
The  angels  have,  moreover,  by  nature  and  by  virtue  of  their  fellow- 
ship with  God,  the  most  exalted  knowledge  to  be  found  among 
created  beings.  They  have  a  mirror  into  which  to  gaze,  namely, 
the  countenance  of  the  Father  in  heaven,  and,  in  consequence 
especially  of  this,  are  much  more  intelligent  than  the  devils,  who 
have  fallen  away  from  God.  They  were  created,  further,  with  a 
power  of  their  own,  by  virtue  of  which  they  perform  wondrously 
great  works  in  the  service  of  God — very  different  in  this  from 
the  human  instruments  employed  by  God,  such  as  the  prophets, 
with  whom  the  power  of  performing  miracles  was  not  a  native, 
inborn  endowment.  This  angelic  power  is  based,  at  the  same 
time,  upon  their  perpetual  fellowship  with  God ;  and  is,  likewise, 
much  greater  than  that  of  the  devils,  because  the  angels  stand  in 
the  presence  of  Him  whose  name  is  the  Almighty. 

With  such  powers,  and  such  obedience  to  God  and  love  toward 
us,  they  are  then  actively  engaged  all  about  us.  Particularly  do 
they  awaken  thoughts  within  us,  inspiring  us  suddenly  with  pur- 
poses and  inclinations.  Externally,  also,  they  suddenly  confront 
us  with  reasons,  difficulties  and  warnings.  Thus,  even  the  heathen 
acknowledge  that  many  things,  as,  for  example,  warfare  and 
victory,  depend  not  upon  human  power  or  cunning,  but  upon 
luck.  We  recognize  that  God  here  employs  the  active  services 
of  angels.  In  all  this  activity,  they  work  in  opposition  to  the 
devil,  who  is  everywhere  seeking  to  bring  injury  and  misfortune 
upon  us.  No  one  could  even  find  the  door  of  his  own  home,  if 
the  angels  did  not  guide  him  and  save  him  from  the  delusive 
suggestions    of   the   devil.     Diseases   are   pre-eminently  strokes 


326  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

and  missiles  of  the  devil.  Medicines  and  other  means  would  be 
of  no  avail  in  combating  disease,  if  the  angels  were  not  present. 
Through  their  ministry  and  suggestion  new  remedies  are  revealed 
to  men  for  new  diseases. 

To  every  Christian,  and,  indeed,  to  every  human  being,  and 
even  to  every  government,  city,  country,  there  is  assigned  a  special 
angel,  who  is  to  do  the  best  for  his  charge.  Thus,  according  to 
Daniel,  St.  Michael  was  the  peculiar  angel  of  the  Jews.  Each 
Christian  has,  moreover,  not  only  one,  but  many  guardian  angels, 
just  as  every  one  has  also  his  particular  devils  creeping  after  him. 

Of  differences  among  the  angels  Luther  is  led  to  speak  when 
treating  of  archangels.  He  describes  Gabriel,  who  is  called 
"  the  power  of  God,"  as  the  most  exalted  power  among  the  angels, 
the  chief  commander  of  the  heavenly  host,  the  marshal  of  the 
King.  In  general,  he  holds,  there  is  among  the  angels  a  grada- 
tion in  dignity,  power  and  wisdom.  Princes  and  lords  have 
greater  angels  than  ordinary  men.  But  he  never  represents  it  as  a 
matter  for  our  concern  to  seek  to  discover  more  about  such  inner 
relations  in  the  angel-world.  The  claims  of  the  Pseudo-Dionysius 
to  a  further  knowledge  of  the  hierarchy  of  heaven  appear  to  him 
sacrilegious.  In  the  Chen/lnin  and  Seraphim  he  does  not  recog- 
nize angels  at  all.  The  term  "  cherub,"  he  holds,  designates  the 
blooming  appearance  of  youth  in  which  the  angels  appear  to  men, 
and  "  seraph,"  their  fiery  and  fire-beaming  form.  In  German, 
they  might  be  spoken  of  zs,'^Gesichter,  die  blilhen  mid gliilien''' 
(blooming  and  glowing  apparitions).  To  this  blooming  form 
belong  also  the  appearing  with  wings  and  the  form  of  a  bird,  lion, 
etc.  Thus  the  angels  represent  for  Luther,  in  a  rich,  vivid  and 
strongly  imaginative  light,  the  presence  of  the  lovingly  and 
mightily  helping  and  protecting  God,  particularly  in  relation  to 
special,  sudden  emergencies  and  crises  of  the  inner  or  outer  life 
of  man,  in  which  a  carnal  eye  can  detect  only  a  peculiarly  fortu- 
nate or  unfortunate  intrusion  of  chance  or  of  some  other  mysteri- 
ous force.  He  makes  no  attempt  to  reach  dogmatic  precision, 
nor  any  more  exact  delineation  of  the  dividing  line  between  the 
earthly  and  the  super-earthly  powers,  nor  of  that  between  the 
agency  of  the  angels  and  the  agency  of  God  Himself  and  His 
Spirit.  The  controlling  interest  in  all  his  deliverances  upon  the 
subject  is  the  directly  practical.  He  does  not  even  take  the 
trouble  to  adduce  passages  of  Scripture  in  support  of  particular 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  327 

points  in  the  assertions  thus  made.  They  appear  to  him  to  be 
natural  inferences  from  leading  passages,  such  as  Heb.  i.  14  and 
Matt,  xviii.  10.^ 

This  doctrine  concerning  the  angels  has  already  involved,  in 
reality,  a  partial  discussion  of  the  divine  agejicy  exerted  upon  the 
world,  in  so  far  as  it  is  to  be  exercised  tnediately  through  created 
things.  We  must  now  examine  more  particularly  what  is,  in  gen- 
eral, according  to  Luther's  view,  the  relation  of  the  omnipotence, 
wisdom  and  love  which  sustain  and  govern  all  created  being  to 
this  subordinate,  mediate  agency,  exerted  through  created  beings 
themselves. 

It  is  here  maintained  that  it  is  only  God  Himself  who,  through 
His  internal  working,  preserves  all  things  in  their  nature,  con- 
tinued existence  and  energies.  Even  the  angels  do  not  help,  as 
does  God,  "  from  within."  Even  where  they  give  good  thoughts, 
"  they  still  do  their  part  only  from  without."  Thus  the  great 
heavenly  bodies  are  governed  in  their  courses,  not  by  the  angels, 
but  by  God  through  His  Word.  Such  a  work  would  be  much 
too  great  for  the  angels.  It  is  through  His  VVord,  likewise,  that 
the  fish  move  in  the  sea,  the  birds  in  the  air,  the  rivers  through 
the  land,  etc.  We  men  are  also  governed  by  God.  The  agency 
of  the  angels  in  this  sphere  (hence,  the  '•  guiding,  leading,"  etc., 
above  mentioned)  is  merely  protective.^ 

But  God  would  also  have  created  things  in  general,  each  one 
of  which  is  itself  upheld  by  His  Word,  co-operate  with  Him  for 
the  sustenance  and  preservation  of  other  things,  and  thus,  in 
particular,  for  the  sustenance  of  His  own  believing  children. 
Upon  this  Luther  insists  as  against  the  notion  that  we  are  author- 
ized, in  our  confidence  in  His  power  and  promises,  to  neglect 
natural  means  and  personal  effort  for  our  own  support.  Thus, 
says  he,  God  conceals  His  own  working  under  the  bread  through 
which  He  nourishes  us.  In  this  way  all  created  things  are  masks 
of  God,  whom  He  permits  to  work  with  Him,  and  whom  He 
helps  in  doing  all  manner  of  things,  which  He  can  do  also,  and 

i  Compile  especially,  upon  the  doctrine  concerning  angels,  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii, 
177-224(186,  185,  184,214,  218);  xlii,  i<^5  sqq.  ;  xlvii,  5.  Op,  Ex.,  i,  15; 
ii,  171  ;  i,  140.  Erl.  Ed.,  x,  151;  vii,  302.  Op.  Ex.,  vi,  49;  iv.  283  sqq. 
Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  254;  vi,  399;  xlii,  150;  vi,  405;  xix,  154,  272;  vi,  406. 
Op.  Ex.,  i,  298  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  144. 

^  Op.  Ex.,  i,  38  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlii,  145. 


328  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

often  does,  without  their  co-operation.  God,  as  Augustine  says, 
"  so  administers  created  things  as  to  permit  them  to  act  with 
motions  of  their  own ;  He  employs  certain  means,  and  so  regu- 
lates His  miraculous  deeds  as  to  employ,  nevertheless,  the  ministry 
of  nature  and  natural  means ;  He  does  not  wish  to  act  very  largely 
according  to  His  extraordinary,  or,  as  the  Sophists  say,  His  abso- 
lute power."  It  is  His  desire,  in  thus  concealing  His  own  work- 
ing, to  exercise  faith,  which,  unable  to  see  His  agency,  is  to 
depend  upon  the  Woid  (/.  e.,  the  promises).  He  who  wilfully 
demands  extraordinary  exhibitions  of  the  divine  power  tempts 
God.  In  this  light  Luther  views  also  the  sacraments.  In  respect 
to  them,  as  well,  we  dare  not  say  that  the  external  is  superfluous, 
and  of  no  benefit,  although,  indeed,  the  power  and  blessing  come 
from  God. 

In  this  way,  God,  while  Himself  alone  conducting  the  govern- 
ment of  men,  still  employs  His  creatures  in  the  work  as  instru- 
ments and  masks.  He  has  associated  with  Himself  both  His 
angels  and  us,  His  human  creatures,  and  desires  to  reign  through 
us.  We  have  seen  the  place  assigned  in  the  divine  economy  to 
the  angels.  The  government  which  He  conducts  through  men 
is  two-fold,  namely,  the  secular,  embracing  the  government  of  the 
home  and  the  authority  of  parents  over  their  children,  and  the 
spiritual,  which  is  exercised  through  the  ministry  of  the  ^^'ord. 
Thus,  God  has  three  spheres  of  external  government — the  two 
human  ones  just  mentioned  and  that  of  the  angels ;  and  besides 
these  He  has  His  own  divine  sphere  of  government.' 

This  entire  mediate  agency  of  God  exercised  upon  separate 
creatures,  together  with  that  mediated  through  angels,  belongs, 
according  to  Luther,  to  the  "  ordinate  potuer  of  Gody  To  this 
would  have  been  attributable,  for  example,  the  miracle,  if  God 
had  brought  forth  from  the  thicket,  through  the  angel's  word  of 
command,  the  ram  which  Abraham  was  to  offer  in  sacrifice 
instead  of  Isaac — "  tanqiiam  per  potcntiam  ordinatam  et  media- 
tarn:''  Yet  Luther  constantly  maintained  that  God  can  exert  His 
power  also  immediately  when  and  where  He  will,  and  that  He 
has  often  done  so ;  for  example,  when  turning  the  heat  of  the 
fiery  furnace  into  coolness.     He  knows  nothing  of  any  laws  of 

'Erl.  E(L,  xi,  109  sq.;  cf.  supra,  p.  218.  Op.  Ex.,  xi,  27  sq. ;  ii,  210  sq.  ; 
iv,  288.      Erl.  Ed,  Ixiii,  253;   xlii,  145  sqq. 


V 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  329 

nature  so  fixed  in  and  of  themselves  as  to  exclude  the  possibility 
of  their  direct  contravention  at  any  time  by  God.  He  observes, 
further,  that  the  laws  which  philosophy  (Physics,  Natural  Science) 
lays  down  for  the  elements  and  general  forces  of  nature,  in 
accordance  with  the  order  actually  established  by  God,  do  not 
bind  the  Creator  even  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  God 
could,  contrary  to  the  latter,  have  fire  in  the  sea ;  and,  according 
to  the  scriptural  narrative  of  the  creation,  there  are  waters  also 
above  the  heavens,  or  firmament,  in  disregard  of  the  ordinary  rule 
according  to  which  heavy  objects  fall.  Such  phenomena  he  com- 
pares to  the  exceptions  to  the  rules  of  grammar,  and  to  the  readi- 
ness (iTTuiiiem)  with  which  the  laws  of  states  are  modified.  That 
which  the  Word  has  created  and  upholds  can,  he  further  declares, 
be  also  now  changed  by  Him,  just  as  all  nature  as  now  existing 
shall  one  day  be  transformed.' 

From  such  a  conception  of  nature  in  general,  and,  still  more, 
from  the  view  above  noted  of  the  ordinate  agency  of  God 
through  angels,  it  is  evident  that  we  cannot  look,  in  the  writings 
of  Luther,  for  any  strict  definition  of  miracles.  Under  this  term 
he  embraces  the  daily  exhibitions  of  the  divine  omnipotence  in 
the  course  of  nature,  which  transcend  our  power  of  comprehen- 
sion. It  is  just  as  great,  and  even  a  greater  wonder,  he  holds, 
that  God  should  cause  corn  to  grow  out  of  sand  and  stones 
than  that  He  should  have  fed  thousands  with  seven  small  loaves. 
We  pay  no  attention  to  these  miracles,  only  because  they  are  so 
common,  and  hence  God  must  occasionally  perform,  not  a 
greater,  but  an  unusual  one,  that  does  not  follow  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature,  in  order  to  arouse  us.  He  regards  as  truly  lofty 
miracles,  in  comparison  with  which  the  miraculous  healings,  etc., 
wer5  scarcely  more  than  childish  miracles,  the  constant  exhibitions 
of  Christ's  power  in  the  defence  and  preservation  of  Christianity 
against  the  devil,  mobs,  tyrants,  etc.,  particularly  in  his  own  day, 
in  the  midst  of  the  Reformation.  But  by  far  the  greatest  miracle 
of  all  he  regards  it,  that  Christ  through  His  Word  gives  life  to  the 
souls  of  men,  washes  away  their  sins  with  His  blood,  etc.  Christ 
Himself,  he  holds,  considers  that  which  is  done  to  the  soul  much 
greater  than  that  which  is  done  to  the  body.'' 

'  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  289  sq.  ;  V,   230  sq.      Erl.  Ed.,  xi,   109.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  36,   39. 
*  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  219;  Ixiii,  343;  xvi,   190.     Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  413. 


330  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

The  power  to  perform  such  special  external  miracles  as  those 
of  the  prophets,  of  Christ  during  His  earthly  ministry,  and  of  the 
apostles,  still  actually  resides  in  believers  by  virtue  of  their  faith. 
Wherever  a  Christian  is  found,  there  is  also  the  power  of  working 
such  miracles,  if  necessity  require  them,  'llius  devils  have  often 
actually  been,  and  still  are,  driven  out  in  Christ's  name  ;  likewise, 
through  appeal  to  the  same  name  and  prayer,  the  sick  recover 
and  many  receive  help  in  great  bodily  and  spiritual  distresses. 
Let  no  one,  however,  presume  to  exercise  the  power  where  neces- 
sity does  not  demand  it.  Even  the  apostles  did  not  employ  it 
recklessly,  but  only  in  order  thereby  to  give  confirmation  to  the 
Word  of  God.  For  this  purpose  we  no  longer  require  such 
evidence,  since  the  Word  shines  brightly  before  the  whole  world, 
since  even  the  Pope  and  the  sects  have  accepted  it,  and  since  no 
other  word  or  revelation  is  to  be  expected.  If,  however,  declares 
Luther  in  one  passage,  necessity  should  require  it,  in  consequence 
of  assaults  upon  the  Gospel,  "  we  would  be  comi)elled  to  actually 
get  to  work  and  also  perform  miracles  before  we  should  suffer 
the  Gospel  to  be  reproached  and  suppressed ;  but  I  hope  this 
may  not  be  necessary."  ^ 

In  speaking  of  Luther's  general  view  of  the  world  and  its  rela- 
tion to  God,  we  must  not  neglect  to  notice  also  the  significance 
which  he  attaches  to  unusual  phenomena  in  the  heavens,  such  as 
comets,  eclipses  of  the  sun  and  moon,  etc.,  as  also  monstrosities 
in  human  form  or  in  the  bodies  of  irrational  animals,  abortions, 
etc.,  in  so  far  as  he  regarded  these  as  divinely-given  signs  of 
warning.  He  speaks  very  fre(]uently,  especially  in  his  letters,  of 
current  instances  of  this  kind.  This  conception  is  one  which 
he  shared  with  the  great  mass  of  his  contemporaries.  In  his 
case,  it  affords  us  still  further  evidence  of  a  deep  religious  ten- 
dency to  bring  the  whole  creation  into  the  most  intimate  relation 
to  God  and  Llis  dealings  with  men.  He  then  classifies  such 
wonders  done  by  God  with  the  signs  and  obstacles  which  are 
placed  in  our  way  on  the  earth  by  the  angels.  Yet  he  does  not 
wish  ua  always  to  trace  back  what  he  represents  as  thus  done  by 
God  to  an  extraordinary  interference  of  the  Almighty.  He  sees 
such  divine  signs,  also,  in  phenomena  predicted  by  astronomers 

'Weimar  Predigten,  90.  Briefe,  ii,  275.  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  1S2  sq.,  218;  xvi, 
191  ;  1,  86  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW. 


331 


from  their  study  of  the  regular  courses  of  the  stars.  He  grants 
even  the  possibihty  of  astrological  predictions,  but  finds  them 
very  unreliable.  If  we  succeed  in  rightly  interpreting  the  signs 
in  one  instance,  we  fail  repeatedly  in  other  cases.  God  Himself 
seeks  to  show  us  the  uncertainty  of  this  art.  We  cannot  make  a 
science  out  of  it.  Nor  is  there  any  need,  according  to  the  divine 
purpose,  that  we  should  do  so — just  as  little  as  that  we  should 
understand  the  natural  force  manifested  in  the  signs,  lightnings 
and  fires  in  the  heavens  above  us.  It  is  enough  that  we  recog- 
nize in  these  things  general  indications  of  the  divine  wrath,  and 
amend  our  lives.  Christians,  who  have  given  themselves  to  God, 
have  no  need  of  the  threatenings  and  warnings  of  the  astrologers.' 
In  this  way  the  whole  creation  is  conceived  as  constantly  held 
in  the  hand  of  the  almighty  and  merciful  God ;  and  the  central 
point  and  culmination  of  all  the  actions  of  this  God  is  found  in 
that  which  He  desires  to  do  for  His  human  creatures,  and  espe- 
cially for  believing  Christians. 

But    THE    DEVIL    AND    THE    EVIL  ANGELS,  who  OppOSe  God  in  this 

world,  are  not  overlooked.  The  entire  sphere  of  human  life  and 
the  world  in  general  appears  to  Luther  involved  in  a  conflict 
being  waged  between  the  devils,  on  the  one  hand,  and  God  and 
His  angels  on  the  other — a  conflict,  moreover,  in  which  God 
Himself  already  has  the  devil  in  His  power,  and  permits  the 
latter  to  ply  his  arts  only  in  so  far  as  may  accord  with  and  serve 
the  divine  purposes. 

The  character  of  the  devil  is  the  direct  opposite  to  that  of  God 
and  the  good  angels.  As  the  nature  of  God  is  nothing  but  love, 
so  the  devil  is  in  his  nature  nothing  but  an  eternal  flame  of  hatred 
and  envy  against  God  and  all  His  works,  particularly  against  the 
pious.  At  the  same  time,  the  evil  spirits,  like  the  angels  from 
whose  ranks  they  fell,  have  higher  endowments  of  a  spiritual 
nature  than  men,  great  understanding  and  power,  just  as  an  evil 
man  has  frequently  better  judgment  and  understanding  in  secular 
affairs  than  a  pious  man.'* 

That  the  evil  spirits  are  fallen  beings,  and  that  even  the  devil 
was  once  an  angel  of  light,  is  certain,  from  the  declaiations  of 
Scripture.     It  is  uncertain  on  which  of  the  days  of  the  creation 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  255  sqq. ;   x,  64,  322  sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  56. 
'^Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  366  sq. ;   xvii,   194  sq. 


332  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

their  fall  occurred — probably  on  the  second  or  third.  Beyond 
this,  the  Scriptures  give  us  no  further  information.  We  may,  how- 
ever, with  all  probability,  suppose  the  cause  of  their  fall,  or  their 
chief  sin,  to  have  been  pride.  They  despised  the  Son  of  God, 
and  their  chief,  the  devil,  particularly,  was  not  satisfied  to  be  the 
most  beautiful  image  of  God  among  the  angels,  but  desired  to  be 
the  inward,  natural,  exact  image  of  God,  equal  to  the  Son.  The 
ancient  Fathers  here  apply  the  words  of  Isa.  xiv.  13,  although 
these  were  originally  spoken,  not  of  the  devil,  but  of  the  king  of 
Babylon.  The  evil  spirits  took  offence  especially  at  the  self- 
humiliation  of  the  Son,  and  likewise  at  the  exaltation  of  humanity, 
even  above  the  angels,  through  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  Lucifer 
having,  as  St.  Bernhard  says,  foreseen  this  purpose  of  God.  They 
stumbled,  also,  at  the  service  which  they  were  to  be  expected  to 
render  to  men.  The  wicked  attempt  to  learn  more  about  the 
unknown,  unrevealed  God  than  he  was  entitled  to  know  was  also 
probably  a  part  of  the  sin  of  Lucifer.'  These  spirits  now  con- 
stitute a  realm  by  themselves — differing  in  their  powers  as  do  the 
good  angels — with  various  offices  and  activities.  Lucifer,  or 
simply  "  the  devil,"  rules  over  the  others,  and  through  them  as 
his  servants  and  subjects." 

It  is  from  these  evil  spirits  that  all  our  misfortunes  come ;  just 
as  God,  the  God  of  love  and  life,  can  of  Himself  do  nothing  but 
good.  As  Christians  should  recognize  the  angels  as  occupying 
the  place  assigned  to  the  deities  of  good  fortune  among  the 
heathen,  so,  likewise,  they  should  know  that  everything  evil  and 
disastrous  that  occurs  comes  from  the  devil.  The  loss  of  an  eye, 
sickness,  death  at  the  hands  of  a  murderer,  etc.,  are  strokes,  or 
missiles,  of  the  devil.  He  raises  storms,  hurls  thunderbolts, 
incites  enemies  against  us.  Wherever  a  fire  breaks  out,  the  devil 
sits  by  and  fans  it  with  his  breath.  If  it  were  not  that  God  and 
the  watchful  care  of  His  angels  restrain  and  limit  the  rage  of  the 
devil,  we  could  not  live  a  single  moment.^  But  it  is  the  special 
work  of  the  devil  to  inspire  evil  thoughts,  and  thus  make  the 
hearts  of  men  full  of  vice,  unbelief,  etc.  It  is  only  a  low  class 
of  devils  which  assail  us  with  the  lusts  of  fornication,  avarice  and 

1  Op.  Ex.,  i,  29  sq.,  189.  Erl.  Ed.,  V.  17.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  30  sq.  Eil.  Ed., 
xxxvii,  87.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  141.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  3.     Op.   Ex.,vii,  152;  vi,  50. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  406  ;  xix,  272  sqq. 

'Ibid.,  vi,  402;  xvii,  196  sqq. ;  xlix,  94;  vi,  398  sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  iv.   2S4, 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  T^T,^ 

ambition.  It  is  a  higher  class  which  tempts  us  to  unbehef, 
despair  or  heresy.  The  bitterest  suffering  which  the  devil  inflicts 
upon  us  is  that  experienced  when  he  assails  the  soul  with  the 
fiery  darts  of  remorse,  the  divine  wrath,  and  fears  of  hellish  tor- 
ment. Every  prince,  as  indeed  every  private  man,  has  his  own 
devil  as  well  as  his  own  angel.  It  is  the  devil  who  inspires 
heretics,  the  lawless  rabble  and  tyrants  who  persecute  the  Gospel. 
At  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  1530,  every  bishop  seemed  to  have 
brought  with  him  as  many  devils  as  a  dog  has  fleas  on  St.  John's 
day.  The  so-called  free  will  of  the  natural  man  is  entirely  under 
the  control  of  the  devil,  2  Tim.  ii.  26  (cf.  citation  from  De  servo 
arbitrio,  supra,  p.  482:  Man  is  a  steed,  upon  which  sits  either 
Satan  or  God).  He  is  able,  however,  to  assail  even  Christians, 
particularly  with  refined  spiritual  temptations,  although  Christ  has 
already  conquered  him.  This  he  does  in  his  character  as 
"  Diabolus,"  reviler,  or  accuser.  Rev.  xii.  10;  and  against  the 
charges  which  he  thus  prefers  God  has  given  to  believers  His 
Holy  Spirit  as  their  advocate  and  patron.  To  the  devil  especially, 
Luther  traces  his  own  agonizing  spiritual  experiences,  connected, 
as  they  frequently  were  with  bodily  suffering,  dizziness,  etc.,  to 
which  he  often  in  his  letters  refers  with  so  much  earnestness. 
He  declares  that  he  often  feels  within  himself  the  devil's  fury. 
He  relates  that  the  devil  has  sometimes  at  night  disputed  with 
him  in  regard  to  his  own  Christian  character  and  his  teaching, 
until  the  sweat  rolled  off  his  body  and  his  heart  trembled." 
Since  such  power  is  still  allowed  to  the  evil  angels  and  Satan 
throughout  the  whole  world,  and  since  the  latter  yet  holds 
dominion  over  the  great  mass  of  the  race,  he  is  still  called  the 
prince  of  this  world.  Thus  also,  according  to  Eph.  vi.  13,  there 
are  many  "  lords  of  the  world  " — who  rule  over  the  world  and 
have  the  whole  world,  with  its  emperors  and  kings,  under  their 
dominion. - 

The  devils  thus,  according  to  Luther,  ply  their  trade  all  about 
us.  The  Christian  should  recognize  the  fact  that  the  devil  is 
nearer  to  him  than  his  coat  or  shirt — yea,  nearer  even  than  his 
own  skin:  Everywhere,  too,  the  angels  are  found  opposing  them. 
We  are  constantly  living  and  moving  between  the  two.^ 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  406  ;   xl,  105;  xvii,  187,  209  sqq. ;   xxiv,  290  sq.;  xxxi,  20; 
xvii,  210;   XXV,  74;  xxiii,  199;  xii,  268;  xvii,  211  ;  xxxi,  31 1  sqq. 
'^Ibid.,  xix,  273.  •'  Ibid.,  xvii,  178  sqq.;  iii,  350. 


334  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

These  two  classes  of  beings,  consequently,  in  their  mutual 
opposition,  occupy  corresponding  places  in  Luther's  general 
religious  conception  of  the  world.  Yet  we  must  not  forget  the 
fact  already  noted,  that  the  agency  of  the  devil  does  not, 
in  Luther's  view,  stand  opposed  to  that  of  the  angels  alone. 
It  has  also  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  contend  against. 
The  devil  controls  sinful  men,  as  God  works  in  the  redeemed 
and  governs  them,  not  only  through  the  angels,  but  also  through 
the  Spirit.  The  ministry  of  angels  is  represented,  accordingly, 
as  insufficient  for  the  conquest  of  the  devil,  Avhich  can  be 
accomplished  only  by  the  Son  of  God.  The  devil  exercises 
also,  in  order  to  deceive  and  injure  us,  a  peculiar  power  in 
the  sphere  of  external  nature.  He  sends  storms  and  lightning. 
The  evil  spirits,  swarming  about  us  like  bees,  often  show  them- 
selves in  bodily  form,  such  as  flames  darting  across  the  sky,  leap- 
ing like  goats  in  forests  and  along  streams,  creeping  about  in 
swamps  like  jack-o'-lanterns.  The  devil  shows  himself,  as  Luther 
claims  to  have  himself  seen,  in  the  form  of  a  sow,  a  burning 
wisp  of  straw,  and  the  like.  To  the  same  category  belong  also 
the  ghosts  and  hobgoblins  sent  by  the  devil.  That  he  has  some- 
times appeared  with  horns,  broken  men's  necks,  and  torn  off 
their  heads,  appears  to  Luther  not  at  all  incredible.'  It  has  been 
already  remarked,  that  Luther  did  not  pronounce  the  miraculous 
works  to  which  the  Papacy  appealed  pure  inventions,  but  recog- 
nized them  as  works  of  the  devil.  He  declares  that  the  devil 
thus  blinds  the  eyes  of  men,  that  he  deceives  them  with  illusions 
— as,  for  example,  making  a  person  seem  to  be  dead,  and  then 
arousing  him  as  though  from  the  dead.  He  grants,  however, 
that  God  may,  indeed,  permit  real  miracles  to  be  peiformed  by 
the  devil  for  the  punishment  of  those  who  will  not  regard  the 
truth.^  He  considers,  finally,  as  actual  facts,  the  reputed  works 
of  witchery  and  sorcery  performed  by  human  beings,  especially 
by  women,  through  the  power  of  the  devil — such  as  causing 
storms,  bewitching  cattle,  etc.  He  thinks  "  dacmoncs  inciibos  ct 
succi/lws  "  also  possible.  That  devils  can  actually  beget  children 
through  intercourse  with  women,  he,  indeed,  utterly  denies ;  but 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  III  ;  xix,  281  sq. ;  iii,  349.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  420.  Erl. 
Ed.,  xlvi,  374. 

2  Vol.  I.,  pp.  380,  466.  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  340  sqq. ;  xxxv,  143,  155  ;  xlix,  94  sqq. 
Conim.  ad  Gal.,  i,  277  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xliii,  340  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  335 

there  are,  he  grants,  children  that  are  deformed  by  the  devil,  or 
are  real  devils  with  only  simulated  or  stolen  flesh.  In  the  Decern 
praecepta  he  gives  us  an  account  at  length  of  all  kinds  of  sorcery.' 

We  here  recognize  in  Luther  very  plainly  the  power  of  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  devil  then  prevalent  among  the  masses,  and 
derived  in  part  by  tradition  from  the  heathen  world,  under  the 
influence  of  which  he  had  spent  the  years  of  his  youth,  and 
which  found  a  response  in  his  natural  disposition  in  the  tendency 
toward  a,  not  only  remarkably  vivid,  but  also  as  far  as  possible 
concretely  individualized  and  positive,  massive  conception  of  all 
higher  powers  of  evil  as  well  as  of  good.  We  have  already,  when 
treating  of  the  nature  of  God,  endeavored  to  show  how  the  sig- 
nificance thus  given  to  the  devil  and  his  agency  is  linked,  in  the 
fundamental  features,  with  Luther's  apprehension  of  the  divine 
nature  as  derived  from  the  Gospel  revelation.'^ 

It  was  then,  however,  also  observed  that,  with  all  his  opposition 
to  God,  the  devil  is  still  represented  as  himself  held  in  subjection 
by  the  hand  of  God.  To  this  fact  we  are  brought  back  by  the 
whole  discussion  of  the  Reformer's  views  of  demonology.  Since 
the  fall  of  the  devils,  their  sentence  has  remained  unalterably 
fixed,  although  they  have  not  been  cast  into  hell.  They  have 
already  been  bound  with  chains  as  a  preparatory  movement,  and 
it  is  just  because  they  know  that  they  must  lose  their  castle  and 
make  way  for  us,  that  they  so  rage  against  us.  In  their  rage, 
moreover,  they  are  not  only  held  in  check  by  their  triumphant 
opponents,  God  and  His  angels,  the  latter  far  exceeding  them  in 
understanding,  power  and  even  number ;  but  they  are  compelled 
by  their  very  rage,  against  their  will,  themselves  to  serve  God  and 
further  His  purposes.  He  uses  them  in  accomplishing  His 
"  strange  work."  What  they  do.  He  does,  since  He,  by  with- 
drawing His  hand  purposely,  allows  them  to  do  it.  It  is  even 
said  that  He  "  incites^  the  devil,"  in  order  to  punish  men.  If 
God,  with  all  the  devils  that  He  has  at  His  command,  can  yet 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  184.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  45  (The  remark  of  Luther  in  this 
passage  is  of  interest.  He  says  that  in  the  days  of  his  childhood  there  were 
many  witches,  who  bewitched  cattle  and  men,  and  especially  children;  but 
that  now,  since  the  Gospel  has  been  brought  to  light,  nothing  more  is  heard  of 
these,  but  the  devil  blinds  the  eyes  of  men  by  much  more  terrible  spiritual 
sorceries).     Op.  Ex.,  ii,  127;  xii,  8  sqq. 

^  Supra,  p.  292. 


336  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

scarcely  lead  us  to  call  upon  Him,  what,  he  asks,  would  we  do  if 
there  were  no  devil  at  all  and  no  misfortune,  etc?  By  the 
departure  of  Christ  to  the  Father,  the  world  and  the  devil  were 
finally  overcome.  Whereas  redeemed  believers  are  secure  in  the 
hand  of  Christ,  the  judgment  which  the  world  and  the  devil 
would  fain  pronounce  upon  them  is  perpetually  annulled  by  the 
Lord  and  put  to  shame.  There  yet  remains  only  the  final  execu- 
tion of  the  divine  judgment  upon  the  latter,  which  will  be  visited 
upon  them  in  the  fires  of  hell.' 

This  doctrine  concerning  the  devil  stands  also  in  the  most 
intimate  connection  with  that  of  hianan  dep7-avity.  It  is  just  in 
his  inward  dominion  over  sinful  men,  that  the  opposition  of  the 
devil  to  the  divine  will  reaches  its  culmination.  The  natural 
man,  in  so  far  as  the  grace  of  God  has  not  been  revealed, 
appears  as  actually  given  over  entirely  to  his  power.  Luther's 
remark,  that  we  can  and  should  cast  satanic  thoughts  out  of  our 
heads,  does  not  apply  to  man  in  his  natural  state,  but  only  to  the 
redeemed.  But,  in  the  first  place,  we  observe  that  the  fall  of 
Adam  and  the  original  sin  which  thus  found  entrance,  and  which 
involves  this  dominion  of  the  devil,  is  never  by  Luther  ascribed 
to  a  resistless  influence  of  the  devil,  but  is  always  represented  as 
the  fault  of  Adam,  who  was  only  tempted  by  the  devil.  Chris- 
tians are  then  represented  as  snatched  from  under  the  dominion 
of  the  prince  of  this  world,  however  he  may  yet  assail  them. 
While  they  hold  fast  to  Christ,  the  sacraments,  and,  above  all,  the 
Word  of  God,  they  are  enabled  to  realize  that  the  prince  of  this 
world  has  already  lost  his  palace  and  his  armor.  A  pious  man 
once  frightened  him  away  by  simply  saying  :  "  I  am  a  Christian," 
affording  an  illustration  of  the  truth  :  "  A  single  word  can  fell 
him."  Believers  in  Christ  need  no  longer  fear  him.  They  may 
ridicule  and  despise  him.  There  is  nothing  else  so  hard  for  him 
to  endure  ;  and  he  flees  when  such  weapons  are  used  against  him. 
If  he,  indeed,  still  drops  evil  and  tempting  thoughts  into  the 
hearts  of  good  people,  the  latter  should  not  long  worry  themselves 
with  these,  but  just  let  them  drop  out  again.  We  cannot  pre- 
vent the  birds  from  flying  over  our  heads,  but  we  need  not  let 
them  build  their  nests  in  our  hair.     Those  who  are  assailed  by 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  282.  Supra,  pp.  290  sqq.,  325  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  167, 
288.     Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  197  sq. ;  xxiv,  291 ;  xvii,  181 ;  xii,  129. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  337 

him  may  even  by  drinking,  playing,  jesting,  commit  some  sin 
(/.  c,  something  that  the  devil  makes  sin  out  of)  to  show  their 
hatred  and  contempt  for  him,  by  giving  him  no  chance  to  worry 
them  with  scruples  about  trifling  matters,' 

So  little  did  I.uther  allow  himself  to  be  hampered  in  his  appre- 
hension of  the  omnipotent  mercy  of  God,  or  alarmed  to  the 
detriment  of  his  own  joyous  Christian  courage,  by  the  thought  of 
the  tearful  ravages  of  the  devil  on  every  hand. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  426;  xvii,  237;  xlix,  358;  vi,  385.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  305  sq. 
Briefe,  iv,  1S8. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

NATURAL  STATE  OF  MAN  BEFORE  AND  SINCE  THE  FALL. 

RIGHT    WILL    AND    TRUE    KNOWLEDGE PERFECTIONS DOMINION 

DIVINE  IMAGE ORIGINAL  RIGHTEOUSNESS DIVINE  WORSHIP FIRST 

SIN NATURE    OF    SIN ORIGINAL    SIN STATE    OF    SIN. 

The  doctrine  of  the  present  state  of  man  leads  at  once  to  the 
very  centre  of  the  fundamental  questions  around  which  the  dog- 
matic conflict  of  the  Reformation  raged.  The  positions  taken  as 
to  his  original  state  were  not  thus  involved  in  the  controversies  of 
the  day.  The  declarations  of  Luther  upon  the  latter  subject  are, 
accordingly,  not  found  in  his  controversial  writings,  but  principally 
in  his  Latin  Commentary  upon  the  First  Chapter  of  Genesis. 
They  are  all,  however,  in  entire  harmony  with  the  general  con- 
ception of  the  nature  of  sin  and  of  morality  which  lies  at  the 
basis  of  his  doctrine  concerning  the  present  state  of  sin.  The 
doctrine  of  the  original  state  was  with  him  simply  the  counter- 
part of  that  of  original  sin,  as  developed  in  his  controversy  with 
the  Papists. 

We  must  endeavor,  first  of  all,  to  note  all  the  distinguishing 
features  which,  according  to  Luther,  marked  the  condition  in 
which  man  found  himself  in  the  beginning  of  his  career,  as  he 
came  from  the  Creator's  hand,  created,  as  the  Scriptures  teach 
us,  after  the  image  of  God.  We  have  here,  indeed,  to  do,  as 
Luther  confesses,  with  a  condition  of  which  we  are  no  longer 
able  properly  to  conceive,  since  we  are  not  only  entirely  without 
any  experience  of  it,  but  have  a  constant  experience  of  the  direct 
opposite.*  Yet  it  is  just  from  this  deep  consciousness  of  that 
which  now  defiles  us,  and  which  cannot  have  been  originally  the 
work  of  the  holy  and  kind  Creator,  but  is  evidently  only  an 
opposing  and  destroying  force,  that  we  find  Luther  developing 

1  Op.  Ex.,  i,  77,  79. 
(338) 


I 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  339 

his  view  of  what  the  Creator's  work  must  itself  have  been  in  the 
beginning. 

Man  has  now,  in  sinning,  alienated  himself,  with  his  will,  from 
God.  The  opposite  of  this  condition  Luther  finds,  in  the  original 
state,  in  the  "right  will"  {^recta  volitnlas)  —  a  will  morally 
entirely  pure — entirely  devoted  to  the  love  of  God  and  fellow- 
man.     In  immediate  connection  with  this,  however,  he  places  a 

TRUE    AND    UNERRING    KNOWLEDGE    OF    GOD.       ThuS    knowing   God, 

he  acknowledges  Him  as  God,  believes  in  His  goodness,  obeys 
Him,  etc.  Man  then  enjoyed  also  uninterrupted  and  undisturbed 
peace  in  God,  without  any  care,  restlessness  or  anxiety.  This 
constitutes,  according  to  Luther,  the  essential  contrast  to  the 
fundamental  features  of  that  state  of  sin  which,  after  the  fall  of 
Adam,  became  hereditary  among  men.  He  regards  it  as  merely 
a  subordinate  feature  of  the  original  character  of  man,  and  one 
that  is  to  be  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  there  was  in  it 
no  trace  of  low,  carnal  lust — of  that  "  concupiscence  "  in  which 
Roman  Catholic  theologians  saw  the  most  important  result  of  the 
Fall  for  the  inner  life  of  man.  Without  the  Fall,  Adam  and  Eve 
would  have  begotten  and  conceived  children  in  pure  sexual  love, 
without  wild  and  loathsome  passion,  in  the  spirit  of  obedience 
toward  God  and  repose  in  His  fellowship.^ 

It  is  in  the  characteristics  above  noted  that  Luther  finds  in 
man  the  "  itnage  of  God,''  and  not  in  his  general  spiritual  endow- 
ment— the  powers  of  thought,  will,  etc., — which  have  remained 
since  the  Fall,  and  in  which  Satan  far  excels  us.  In  all  other 
respects,  also,  the  native  powers  of  Adam,  even  in  his  relation  to 
other  objects  in  the  world,  were  in  an  excellent  and  faultless 
CONDITION,  whereas  they  are  now  utterly  ruined  and  most  thor- 
oughly enfeebled.  In  him  were  "  all  the  senses,  both  internal 
and  external,  most  superb,  the  intellect  most  pure  and  memory 
the  best  " — eyes  keener  and  clearer  than  the  eagle's — perfect 
knowledge  of  nature,  of  animals,  plants,  etc.,  as  proved  by  his 
ability  to  give  to  all  animals  their  appropriate  names.  The 
human  body  was  also  pure  in  all  its  parts,  with  functions  of 
eating,  drinking,  digestion,  etc.,  without  any  of  the  loathsome 
features  now  connected  with  the  process  of  nutrition.  The  tree 
of  life  would  have  preserved  to  him  perpetual  health  and  youth, 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  17  ;   i,  77  sqq.,  142,   130,  178. 


340  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

and  furnished  protection  against  all  natural  ills.  Men  would 
always  have  retained  their  sexual  virile  power ;  women  would 
have  rejoiced  in  most  abundant  fruitfulness ;  children  would  not 
so  long  have  needed  the  mother's  breast,  but  would  probably, 
like  little  chickens,  have  stood  at  once  upon  their  feet  and  run 
about  to  find  their  own  food.' 

The  relation  of  man  to  external  nature,  and  especially  his 
DOMINION  over  it,  was  regarded  as  also  constituting  a  feature  of 
the  divine  image.  Nor  would  the  world  of  nature  merely  have 
been  willingly  subject  to  man  :  it  was  also,  in  itself,  full  only  of 
that  which  was  good.  All  trees  were  good  and  fruitful ;  there 
were  as  yet  no  ravenous  beasts ;  the  ground  was  without  thorns ; 
the  air  was  purer  and  more  healthful,  and  the  light  of  the  sun 
more  clear  and  beautiful.  The  beasts  of  the  field  would  have 
had  a  common  table  with  Adam,  and  fed  upon  wheat  and  other 
fruits.  Yet  Luther,  in  the  course  of  such  descriptions,  inci- 
dentally asserts  that  Adam  could  by  a  mere  wink  have  frightened 
off  bears  and  lions — as  though  such  animals  might  perhaps  have 
existed,  but  would  not  have  been  dangerous  to  man.  He  sup- 
poses that  there  would  have  been  a  perpetual  spring,  without 
winter  or  frosts ;  yet  he  refuses  to  find  an  illustration  of  the 
"groaning  of  the  creation"  (Rom.  viii. )  in  the  withering  of 
leaves  and  decay  of  fruit,  inasmuch  as  this  is  an  appointment  of 
God,  in  order  that  new  fruits  may  grow  annually.'  In  this  happy 
state,  Adam  would  have  been  required,  indeed,  to  labor,  to 
cultivate  the  land,  keep  the  garden,  etc.,  but  he  would  have  done 
so  without  any  weariness  or  danger,  with  pleasure  and  repose. 
His  children  and  descendants  would  also  have  still  been  required 
to  spread  abroad,  bringing  the  land  under  cultivation.  But  they 
would  have  had  no  need  of  great  stone  houses.  As  the  birds  have 
their  nests,  so  men  would  have  found  dwelling-places  here  and 
there  in  the  midst  of  the  scenes  in  which  God  should  have  called 
them  to  labor.  The  comfort  of  women,  especially,  would  have 
required  fixed  abodes.^ 

It  was  an  "  entirely  divine  "  life  which  Adam,  by  virtue  of  the 

'Op.  Ex.,  i,  77.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  55.      Op.   Ex.,  xix,  71  ;   1,78,80,   149, 
138,  155  sqq.,  128,  276. 
'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  80,  48,  91,  96,   182,  260,  129.     Ed.   Ed.,  ix,  106  sq.,  104. 
^  Op.  Ex.,  i,  82,  108,  127  sqq.,  166. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  341 

divine  image  which  he  bore,  would  have  been  called  upon  to  lead. 
He  was,  "  briefly  stated,  immersed  in  that  which  was  good,  and 
without  any  evil  lust,  just  as  God  Himself,  so  that  he  was  full  of 
God."  '  From  the  present  life  he  would  have  been  eventually 
transferred  into  life  entirely  spiritual,  angelic,  without  eating  or 
drinking  or  other  bodily  activities  (cf.  i  Cor.  xv.  45  sq.).  Into 
this  new  phase  of  existence  he  would  have  been  transported 
without  pain,  in  the  midst  of  a  sweet  sleep,  similar  to  that  which 
God  had  caused  to  fall  upon  him  before  the  creation  of  Eve.' 

The  above  is  all  embraced  in  Luther's  conception  of  the  divine 
IMAGE,  as  borne  by  Adam.  It  furnishes  us  at  once  his  doctrine 
of  Original  Righteousness  {justitia  originalis),  which  may  be 
briefly  stated  as  follows :  To  man's  original  righteousness  belong 
all  the  above  elements,  in  so  far  as  they  affect  his  personal  atti- 
tude toward  God — as,  that  he  acknowledged  God,  obeyed  Him, 
etc. ;  that  he,  without  being  admonished  from  without,  recognized 
and  honored  also  the  works  of  God  in  their  true  character ;  that, 
as  a  further  consequence,  he  lived  in  peace,  without  fear  of  death, 
etc.  The  more  restricted  idea  of  righteousness,  as  distinguished 
from  the  entire  conception  of  the  original  state  involved  in  the 
possession  of  the  divine  image,  is  not  at  all  presented  by  Luther. 
The  same  condition  of  body  and  soul  would  have  been  inherited 
by  the  children  of  Adam,  i.  e.,  "  inherited  (original)  righteous- 
ness "  instead  of  the  now  universal  "  inherited  (original)  sin."  ' 

Luther  discriminates,  in  a  supplementary  paragraph,  under 
Gen.  V.  I,  between  "imago,  D?^  "  and  "  sinii/ifudo,  niQ"T," 
as  follows :  The  former  denotes  the  image  in  itself,  which  does 
not  necessarily  imply  a  full  delineation  of  all  the  features ;  the 
latter  indicates  the  completeness  of  the  image.  Moses  means 
to  say  :  God  is  imaged  in  man,  not  only  in  that  the  latter  pos- 
sesses knowledge  and  will,  but  also  to  such  an  extent  that  he 
knows  God  and  wills  what  God  wills.  In  other  passages,  how- 
ever, Luther  combines  both  these  ideas  in  a  general  conception, 
speaking  of  the  "likeness  or  image"  {Ebetibild  oder  imago). 
In  the  divine  act,  and  in  the  original  state  of  Adam,  he  thinks  of 
both  as  really  and  directly  one  and  the  same.* 

1  Op.  Ex.,  i,  78.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  55.  ^Op.  Ex.,  i,  163,  82,  288. 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  141  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  55  ;  xv.  47. 
*0p.  Ex.,  ii,  88. 


342  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

In  opposition  to  the  dominant  scholastic  theology,  Luther 
maintained,  as  a  fundamental  doctrine,  that  the  entire  image  of 
God  was  in  such  a  way  impressed  upon  man  in  his  creation  that 
it  belonged  to  his  essential  nature.  He  speaks  of  the  theory, 
that  the  likeness  i^simi/itudo),  as  discriminated  from  the  image 
{ijtiago),  consists  in  gracious  gifts  by  which  nature  is  completed — 
that  the  image  refers  to  knowledge  and  will  in  themselves  con- 
sidered, and  the  likeness  to  the  illumination  of  knowledge 
through  faith,  and  the  adornment  of  the  will  with  love.  But 
even  when  he  himself,  under  Gen.  v.  i,  discriminates  thus,  he 
does  so  by  no  means  in  the  spirit  of  the  scholastic  theologians ; 
that  is,  he  does  not  mean  to  imply  that  it  was  only  the  elements 
of  the  "  image  "  which  belong  to  the  essential  nature  of  Adam, 
and  that  Adam  received  all  else  as  a  gift  over  and  above  his 
natural  endowment,  either  immediately  at  his  creation  or  at  some 
later  moment.  On  the  contrary,  he  says  of  the  "  likeness  " 
i^Ebenbild) ,  including  all  in  the  term  :  I  think,  in  regard  to  the 
image  of  God,  that  Adam  had  this  ///  his  nature  (^substantia)  — 
that  he  knew,  believed,  etc.,  God.  He  rejects  with  great  emphasis 
the  theory,  that  original  righteousness  {Justitia)  was  not  connate, 
etc.,  and  to  it  he  opposes  the  proposition  :  Righteousness  was 
not  some  gift  which  came  from  without,  separate  from  the  nature 
of  man,  but  it  was  truly  natural,  so  that  it  was  the  nature  of 
Adam  to  love  and  believe  God,  etc.  This,  he  says,  was  just  as 
natural  for  Adam  as  it  is  for  the  eye  to  receive  the  light.' 

Luther  could  not,  indeed,  have  taught  otherwise,  in  vieAv  of  his 
whole  conception  of  morality,  upon  which,  in  turn,  his  final  judg- 
ment in  regard  to  the  state  of  sin  depends.  He  knows  no  middle 
ground  between  a  disposition  of  the  will  in  harmony  with  God 
and  one  directly  opposed  to  God.  If  God  had  not  implanted 
the  former  in  man  at  his  creation,  He  must  have  then  implanted 
the  latter.  It  might  still,  however,  have  remained  an  open 
question,  whether  the  possession  of  the  divine  image  requires  us 
to  attribute  to  man  in  the  original  state  such  an  entire,  complete 
mental  and  corporeal  equipment  as  Luther  claims,  or  whether, 
even  in  connection  with  such  perfectly  correct  disposition,  we 
may  not  still  think  of  distinctions  in  the  degree  and  maturity  of 
the  moral  and  religious  righteousness  possessed. 

>0p.  Ex.,  i,  75,  78,  208  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  343 

Adam  did  not  yet,  indeed,  according  to  Luther,  possess  the 
perfection  he  was  designed  to  attain,  Not  only  was  it  alone  by 
eating  of  the  fruits  of  Paradise  that  he  was  to  obtain  actual 
immortality,  and  only  at  the  end  of  his  earthly  life  that  he  was  to 
enter  upon  his  truly  immortal  career ;  but  Luther  calls  even  his 
innocence  a  "  childish  innocence,"  just  as  he  had  also  as  vet 
only  a  "  childish  glory"  {gloria  piier His).  It  was  still  possible 
for  him  to  be  deceived  by  Satan  and  to  fall.  He  still  needed  to 
be  elevated,  as  to  the  glory  of  heaven,  so  also  to  mature  manly 
innocence,  such  as  the  angels  now  possess,  and  as  believers  shall 
possess  in  the  other  life,  /.  e.,  to  perfect  innocence,  from  which  it 
should  be  no  longer  possible  to  fall.  'The  thought  of  a  progress 
in  moral  development,  which  is  thus  acknowledged  to  have 
been  imperfect,  though  pure,  is  no  further  pursued  by  Luther.^ 
He  emphasizes  only  one  further  point  in  this  connection,  namely, 
that  for  Adam,  as  for  the  regenerate  now,  righteousness  was,  at 
all  events,  not  to  be  attained  by  man's  own  works ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  because  Adam  in  his  personality  was  created  good, 
upright,  pure  and  holy,  his  works  also,  even  when  he  but  ate,  or 
drank,  or  caught  birds,  were  right  and  good.  The  same  idea  lies 
beneath  the  saying  of  the  Reformer,  that  Adam  did  not  need  to 
become  more  perfect,  since  he  was  already  perfect  by  nature ; 
and  he  received  the  commandment  from  God«only  to  display  and 
exercise  his  piety .^ 

Luther  regarded  also  the  general  elementS'OF  divine  worship 
as  essentially  involved  in  the  intercourse  -of  man  in  his  original 
state  with  God.  He  assumes  that  the  seventh  day  was  then 
already  set  apart  to  be  kept  holy,  /.  <?.,  -dedicated  to  God,  for 
preaching  of  Him,  praising  Him,  etc.  He  regards  the  tree  of 
knowledge,  with  the  commandment  attached  to  it,  as  an  outward 
sign.  It  was  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  temple,  at  which  Adam  and  his 
descendants  were  to  assemble  for  divine  worship.  It  was  per- 
haps, also,  not  a  single  tree,  but  an  entire  grove.  It  is  called 
"  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  "  by  Moses  because  of 
the  unhappy  sequel.  Luther  maintains  it  as  a  certainty,  that  the 
tree  of  life  did  not  possess  its  peculiar  properties  by  nature,  but 
through  the  power  of  the  divine  Word.  He  thus  finds  in  it 
already  an  analogy  for  the  signs  and  sacraments  afterward  granted 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  139  sq.  "^  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  261  sq.  ;  xlix,  335. 


344  '-I'^E    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

to  sinful  man.  In  like  manner,  says  he,  the  brazen  serpent  was 
appointed  to  heal,  and  baptismal  water  to  make  righteous.  In 
this  tree  of  knowledge,  the  Church  also  was  in  reality  established 
— thus  antedating  the  family  or  civil  government,  as  Eve  was  at 
that  time  not  yet  created.' 

But  what  is  now  conceived  to  be  the  relation  between  the  inner 
life  and  outward  conduct  of  man  and  the  agency  of  God  exerted 
directly  upon  him.  We  find  no  parallels  to  the  sweeping  dec- 
larations of  the  Heidelberg  Disputation^  nor  to  the  Reply  to  Eras- 
mus? On  the  other  hand,  however,  we  must  point  to  the  above- 
cited  utterances  touching  the  universal  agency  of  God,  scattered 
as  they  are  through  the  whole  course  of  his  later  writings.  Luther 
still  guards  carefully,  even  in  his  comments  upon  the  narrative 
of  creation,  against  his  opponents'  conception  of  free  will.  By 
virtue  of  our  very  creation,  he  maintains,  we  are  throughout  our 
entire  lives  only  clay  in  the  hand  of  the  potter ;  we  have  free 
will  only  in  regard  to  that  which  is  beneath  us,  not  in  our  relations 
with  God,  nor  in  that  which  is  above  us.  Man  possesses  a  mere 
passive,  not  an  active,  ability  (^potentia) .  But  the  Fall  is  no  longer, 
as  in  the  pamphlet  against  Erasmus,  traced  to  the  doing  or  not 
doing  of  God,  but  simply  to  the  decision  of  the  will  of  man,  who 
did  not  conform  to  the  divine  will.  The  question  as  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  universal  agency  of  God  to  this  decision  Luther  does 
not  consider  as  a  proper  subject  for  investigation.  The  only  con- 
clusion upon  this  point,  in  its  relation  to  the  original  state  of  man, 
which  can  be  drawn  from  the  writings  of  Luther,  is  the  following : 
All  good  thought  or  deed  could,  even  then,  come  to  man  only 
through  the  continual  agency  of  God,  who  had  implanted  it  in 
him  by  creation.  Even  then,  he  was  not  to  aim  at  any  self- 
righteousness — was  not  to  work  actively,  instead  of  allowing  God 
to  work  in  him — was  to  desire  to  be  nothing  but  merely  passive 
matter  (materia  mere  passiz'a)  .* 

This  original  state  endured  until  the  first  sin  of  the  head  of  the 
race.  The  Original  Sin  from  which  we  suffer  then  took  the 
place  of  original  righteousness. 

In  discussing  the  fall,  Luther  simply  and  faithfully  follows 
the  Mosaic  narrative.     In  the  permission  granted  to  Satan,  in  the 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  117  sq.,  99  sq.,  288  sq.,  129.  '^  Vol.  I.,  p.  284. 

»  Vol.  I.,  p.  488.  *  Comm.  ad  Gal,  i,  374. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  345 

form  of  the  serpent,  to  tempt  man,  he  recognizes  the  design  of 
God  to  test  man  and  exercise  his  powers ;  in  the  actual  fall  of 
the  first  pair,  simply  their  own  fault.  The  sinning  of  men  was 
only  in  so  far  conditioned  upon  their  own  nature,  as  the  latter 
had  not  yet  attained  the  maturity  of  "  manly  innocence."  But 
Luther  designs  thus  to  attribute  to  men  only  a  possibility  of  fall- 
ing, and  not  an  infirmity  which  would  have  made  the  Fall  in  any 
event  imavoidable.  He,  in  one  passage,  expresses  the  opinion 
that  if  the  temptation  had  assailed  Adam  first,  he  would  probably 
have  overcome  it ;  but  he  does  not  even  here  mean  to  assert  that 
a  conquest  would  have  been  impossible  for  Eve  with  her  lower 
power  of  resistance.  It  is  characteristic  of  Luther,  that  he  avoids 
all  deeper  inquiry  into  the  questions  here  naturally  suggesting 
themselves,  especially  'chat  touching  the  relation  ot  the  Fall  to  the 
divine  counsel  and.  operation.  All  the  more  earnestly  does  he 
strive  to  impress  upon  his  readers  precisely  what  constituted  the 
sin  in  the  conduct  of  Eve.  She  allowed  herself  to  be  led  into 
doubt  of  the  goodness  of  God,  who  had  given  the  commandment, 
and  presumed  to  pry  into  and  pass  judgment  upon  His  will, 
which  was  concealed  from  her,  whereas  she  should  have  been 
content  to  rest  in  believing  resignation  upon  His  Word.  She 
became  guilty  of  unbelief,  which  is  the  source  of  all  sins.  For- 
getting, in  her  presumption,  that  she  was  a  creature,  she  assumed 
the  place  of  the  Creator  Himself,  as  Satan  said  :  "  Ye  shall  be 
as  God."  That  the  guilty  pair  discovered  their  nakedness,  and 
it  became  a  shame  to  them,  was  an  evidence  of  the  loss  of  their 
original  righteousness  and  glory.' 

In  thus  portraying  the  first  sin,  Luther  has  already  expressed 
his  idea  as  to  what  is  the  essential  nature  of  sin  in  general. 
Sin  is  transgression  of  the  divine  Law — everything  which  is  not  in 
conformity  with  the  Law  of  God.  The  Scriptures,  he  declares, 
never  employ  the  word  sin  in  any  other  sense.  The  fundamental 
sin  is  unbelief,  which  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  command- 
ment, and  thus  of  the  entire  Decalogue.  The  impelling  force  in 
unbelief  is  exaltation  of  self,  in  which  man  seeks  himself  to  be 
God,  and  would  have  God  to  be  nothing.  The  very  same  sin 
which  there  began  in  Adam  repeats  itself  in  our  inborn  tendency 
toward  self-righteousness.     Man  wishes   to   be   God,    since   he 

iQp.  Ex.,  i,  182,  190,  184  sqq.;  iv,  122  sq.;  i,  209  sqq. 


346  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

trusts  to  his  own  works  and  righteousness,  and  hopes  to  be  saved 
by  them.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  sin  without  this.  Sin  is,  there- 
fore, to  Luther's  mind,  a  fundamental  perversion  of  the  relation 
between  Creator  and  creature,  manifested  in  the  human  wall. 
But  sin  is  thus  not  only  the  external  act,  but  everything  in  the 
inner  nature  of  man  which  incites  or  impels  him  to  the  act,  /.  e., 
the  inmost  heart  with  all  its  energies.  The  root  of  all  sin  is 
imbelief  in  the  depths  of  the  heart.  Luther  expressly  guards 
pgainst  the  idea  that  sin  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  the  creature, 
as  the  latter  was  made  out  of  nothing  by  the  fiat  of  the  Creator. 
There  is  nothing  of  the  kind,  he  reminds  us,  in  the  angels,  stars, 
or  the  entire  firmament,  which  were  created  at  the  same  time.' 

Among  the  apostles,  says  Luther,  St.  Paul  only  has  treated  the 
subject  of  Original  Sifi  expressly  and  with  real  seriousness.  He 
himself  designates  the  doctrine  the  most  weighty  of  all  contained 
in  the  Scriptures  or  in  theology,  and  declares  that  without  it  a 
projDer  understanding  of  the  Scriptures  is  impossible,  as  may  be 
clearly  seen  from  the  idle  dreams  of  teachers  of  the  modern 
school.'^ 

The  NATURE  OF  ORIGINAL  SIN  may  be  directly  inferred  from  what 
has  been  said  of  original  righteousness.  Luther,  in  his  delinea- 
tion of  the  subject,  starts  with  the  definition  of  Anselm,  which  he 
found  also  in  the  writings  of  Biel,  at  one  time  diligently  studied 
by  him,  and  which  he  describes  as  unanimously  approved  by  all 
the  doctors,  /.  c,  that  original  sin  is  nothing  else  than  a  destitu- 
tion (c(7/r/!iia)  of  original  righteousness.  He  regards  it,  however, 
as  a  destitution  of  that  which  belonged  to  human  nature,  and  a 
loss  which  involves  the  inward  alienation  of  the  entire  man  from 
his  Creator  and  Lord.  He  then  further  asserts  :  Original  sin  is  a 
complete  fall  of  human  nature — a  darkening  of  the  understanding, 
since  we  no  longer  recognize  God  and  His  will,  nor  cherish  any 
regard  for  His  works — a  wondrous  corruption  of  the  will,  so  that 
we  refuse  to  trust  the  mercy  of  God,  do  not  fear  Him,  but,  setting 
aside  His  Word  and  will,  obey  the  impulses  of  the  flesh.  We 
begin  to  hate  and  revile  Him,  and  our  hatred  of  Him  beconies 
passionate.     We  are    simply   turned    away    (ajrrsi)   from  God. 

1  Jena,  ii,  416  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  79.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  185.  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  56, 
363.     Ibid.,  Ixiii,  122  sq,     Jena,  i,  575. 

«0p.  Ex.,  xix,  73,  75. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  347 

This  condition  of  the  soul  is  the  principal  feature  of  the  fallen 
state.  To  it  is  added,  as  an  element  of  original  sin,  the  subjec- 
tion of  the  body  to  the  power  of  vile  and  savage  lust.  Thus  there 
is  again  brought  to  view  the  true  reformatory  element  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Luther.  He  differs  even  from  Augustine  in  this  empha- 
sizing of  the  most  refined  features  of  original  sin,  in  contrast  with 
the  low  and  base  "  concupiscence."  He  continues,  also,  to 
contend  for  that  higher  view  of  the  biblical  conception  of  Flesh, 
which  he  very  early  advanced.'  He  regards  the  entire  man,  with 
his  inward  and  outward  endowments,  with  his  soul  and  reason, 
as  flesh,  according  to  John  iii.  6.  He  explains  this  designation 
of  man  by  asserting  that  in  him  all  things  are  done  to  gratify  the 
flesh,  or  to  effect  that  which  will  minister  to  the  benefit  of  the 
flesh  and  the  temporal  life.  Under  this  conception  he  then, 
however,  includes  the  whole  scope  of  the  tendency  which  stands 
in  contrast  with  the  aspiration  of  the  soul  toward  heavenly  things, 
the  future  life  and  God — the  entire  tendency  toward  self  and 
away  from,  or  against,  God.  In  Rom.  viii.  3,  we  are  to  under- 
stand, he  says,  chiefly  unbelief,  and,  in  general,  all  sin,  under  the 
term  flesh.  Similarly,  he  maintains,  against  Erasmus,  that  now 
even  that  which  is  most  excellent  in  human  nature  is  nothing 
else  than  flesh.  He  regards  as  included  in  the  conception  of 
this  term  especially  self-righteousness,  the  wisdom  of  the  flesh, 
and  the  notion  of  reason,  that  man  may  become  righteous  through 
the  works  of  the  Law. 

This  sinfulness  is  inherited,  or  original,  sin.  We  are  infected 
with  it  from  the  womb.  David  says  :  "  In  sin  was  I  conceived." 
He  does  not  say  :  "  My  mother  sinned  when  she  conceived  me," 
nor :  "  I  sinned  when  I  was  conceived  " — but  he  speaks  of  the 
yet  unshapen  seed  itself,  and  declares  it  to  be  full  of  sin  and  a 
mass  of  corruption.  In  meeting  the  question,  by  what  means 
the  material  in  the  womb  is  already  so  corrupted,  Luther  falls 
back  upon  the  lust  of  the  parents  connected  with  the  act  of 
generation,  which  always,  in  his  view,  retains  some  taint  of  sin, 
even  in  the  case  of  the  regenerate,  although  in  the  latter  the  sin 
is  covered  by  the  grace  of  God.  In  another  connection,  he  even 
applies  the  above  language  of  Ps.  li.  to  sin  in  the  conceiving 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  46,  52.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  142  sqq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  8  sq.  Erl. 
Ed.,  Ixiii,  126.     Jena,  iii,  215  b,  218.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  205,  313;  iii,  44. 


348  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

mother.  Upon  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul  itself, 
he  adopted  decidedly  the  theory  of  Traducianism.  In  the  year 
1545,  he  asserted  in  formal  propositions  :  The  view  that  the  soul 
is  propagated  {ex  traduce  esse)  appears  to  be  not  altogether 
foreign  to  the  Scriptures.  Its  adoption  makes  it  easier  to  account 
for  the  propagation  of  sin.  The  character  and  spirit  of  parents 
certainly  reveal  themselves  in  their  children.  Who  has  ever 
proved  the  thesis  (of  the  Lombard)  :  "  The  intelligent  soul  is 
imparted  by  creation  and  the  physical  nature  by  propagation," 
or  who  shall  prevent  us  from  tracing  the  origin  of  every  soul 
after  the  first  to  propagation?  The  thesis  raises  the  difficult 
question,  whether  God  is  not  unrighteous  if  He  binds  a  pure 
soul  to  the  flesh  and  defiles  it  from  without.  What  shall  prevent 
us,  on  the  other  hand,  from  maintaining  that  God  might,  in  the 
first  instance  (at  the  creation),  bring  the  ^^  anima  intellectiva''^ 
into  being  from  nothing,  and  afterward  from  corrupted  seed,  just 
as  He  allows  a  nisty  ear  of  wheat  to  grow  from  a  diseased  grain. 
At  all  events,  the  believer  may,  without  peril,  remain  in  uncer- 
tainty upon  this  point.'  Another  name  applied  by  Luther  to 
inherited  sin,  or  " peccatuin  oi-iginalis,'''  is  "sin  of  nature,'''  i.  e., 
the  sin  which  we  by  nature,  just  as  we  are  conceived  and  born 
by  nature,  bring  with  us  into  the  world,  distinguished  thus  from 
the  actual  sins  {peccata  actualia)  which  flow  from  it.^ 

This  sin  of  nature  Luther,  however,  regards  as  truly  sin.  For 
this  estimate  of  it  he  contended  especially  in  the  discussion  of 
the  question,  whether  it  was  still  sin  in  those  who  had  been 
released  from  guilt  in  baptism  or  regeneration — opposing  at  this 
point  the  prevalent  theory  of  original  sin,  according  to  which  the 
term  sin  is  here  to  be  understood  as  meaning  only  penalty  for  sin 
(/.  e.,  the  sin  of  Adam),  and  only  the  "  tinder  "  of  sin  remains, 
as  a  mere  infirmity,  in  the  baptized.'*  Here,  too,  he  firmly 
maintains,  must  be  applied  the  axiom  :  "  Sin  is  that  which  is 
not  according  to  the  Law  of  God."  The  supposed  mere  infirmity 
in  question  is  "  against  God."  God  never  lays  down  a  Law  in 
regard  to  any  other  infirmity — as,  for  example,  a  fever — forbid- 
ding us  to  obey  it. 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  70.     Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  51  sq. ;  x,  305  sq.     Jena,  i,  575. 

'' Erl.  Ed.,  x,  306;  xix,  15. 

*Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  326.     Also,  very  particularly,  Confut.  rat.  Latom. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  349 

From  this  view  of  original  sin,  it  follows  that  it,  of  itself,  makes 
us  guilty  before  God.  God  establishes-  Law  precisely  for  those 
things  that  involve  guilt  upon  our  part.  As  we  are  by  nature 
sinners,  so  are  we  also  by  nature  already  the  children  of  wrath. 
Hence,  Luther  demanded  from  Zwingli,  and  secured  from  him 
at  Marburg,  the  acknowledgment  that  original  sin  is  such  a  sin 
as  to  condemn  all  men  to  perdition.  The  Schwabach  Articles 
declare  :  "  That  original  sin  is  really  and  truly  sin,  and  not  only 
a  failing  or  infirmity,  but  such  a  sin  as  would  condemn  and  eter- 
nally separate  from  God  all  men  who  come  of  Adam,  if  Christ 
had  not  interceded  for  us."  ' 

The  scholastic  theology  attributed  the  sin  of  Adam  directly  to 
his  descendants,  who  were  regarded  as  having  sinned  with  him, 
the  head  of  the  race;  but  it  did  not  regard  the  lust  for  sin, 
inherited  from  him,  as  in  itself  true  and  damnable  sin.  The 
question  arises  for  us,  whether  Luther  may  not,  together  with  the 
guilt  which  adheres  to  us  because  of  indwelling  sin,  have  accepted 
also  the  prevalent  idea  of  an  immediate  transfer  of  Adam' s  guilt 
to  us.  We  can  find  no  trace  of  such  a  view  in  his  writings.  In 
the  sermon  in  which  he  defines  original  sin  as  a  "  destitution," 
etc.,  he  proceeds  to  say  :  With  this  original  sin  we  have  been 
punished  through  (on  account  of)  the  sin  of  Adam.  But  he 
adds  :  This  .original  sin  we  bring  with  us,  and  it  is  attributed  to 
us  no  less  than  if  we  had  ourselves  committed  it.  The  assertion 
here,  it  will  be  observed,  is  that  there  is  attributed  to  us  just  that 
which  is  now  actually  in  us.  He  asserts,  upon  the  authority  of 
Rom.  V.  T2,  that  we  are  under  sin  and  condemnation  through 
Adam's  transgression ;  but  he  at  once  explains,  that  we  would  not 
sin  and  be  condemned  through  his  transgression  if  it  were  not 
our  own,  and  that  it  becomes  our  own  (not,  in  the  first  instance, 
by  any  action  of  our  own,  but)  through  our  birth,  in  consequence 
of  which  the  disposition  hostile  to  God  is  dominant  within  us. 
He  says  again  :  Through  the  one  man,  Adam,  and  his  sin,  which 
seems  so  trifling  in  comparison  with  its  consequences,  it  came  to 
pass  that  we  must  all  die,  although  we  have  not  committed  the 
offence,  but  have  simply,  because  born  of  him,  come  under  sin 
and  death.     In  this  passage  again,  it  will  be  noted,  he  represents 

'  Jena,  ii,  416  b,  424,  422.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  135  sq. ;  x,  193.  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  15; 
Ixv,  89  ;  xxiv,  324. 


350  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

US  as  dying  through  Adam,  just  because  we,  through  our  birth 
from  Adam,  have  also  come  into  sin.  He  adds  also  expressly  : 
"  Although  since  the  Fall,  and  when  zue  are  born,  it  is  no  more 
the  sin  of  another,  but  becomes  our  own."  On  the  other  hand, 
we  find  nowhere  in  his  writings  any  outline  or  basis  for  a  theory 
of  the  transmission  of  guilt  without  such  mediation  as  has  been 
indicated.' 

Let  us  now  scrutinize  more  closely  the  general  condition  to 

WHICH  MAN  HAS  THUS  BEEN  REDUCED    BY  THE    LOSS    OF   HIS  ORIGINAL 

RIGHTEOUSNESS — the  extent  of  the  sphere  throughout  which  the 
corruption  has  spread. 

There  is  yet  in  man  Unders  fundi  tig  and  IViU,  although  these 
are  most  profoundly  lueakened  and  even  utterly  leprous  and 
impure.  There  is  still  a  great  difference  between  him  and  the 
other  living  beings  on  the  earth.  Even  the  heathen  have  still 
been  able  to  infer  his  exaltatioa  above  the  latter  from  the  fact 
that  he  walks  erect,  with  his  eyes  directed  towards  the  heavens. 
And  there  is  yet  reserved  for  him  the  possibility  of  restoration  to 
the  divine  image,  and  even  to  a  more  complete  reflection  of  that 
image,  inasmuch  as  we  are  to  be  born  anew  through  Christ  unto 
eternal  life,  to  the  actual  enjoyment  of  which  Adam  had  not  yet 
attained."  Yet  man  is  thoroughly  corrupted  in  his  very  highest 
relations,  /.  e.,  to  God  and  heavenly  things.  There  is  still  possible 
to  him  a  certain  knowledge  of  God ;  ^  but  he  can  no  longer 
rightly  know  anything  at  all  of  God,  and,  least  of  all,  that  which 
he  most  needs  to  know.  This  "  feeble  knowledge  "  ^  is  thus,  in 
truth,  no  knowledge  at  all.  The  best  thoughts  of  the  natural  man, 
even  those  of  the  most  famous  heathen  philosophers,  concerning 
God  and  His  will  are  nothing  but  Cimmerian  darkness.  Not  a 
single  spark  of  divine  knowledge  has  remained  uncorrupted  in 
man.  "  Reason,  without  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  simply  without  the 
knowledge  of  God."  The  Law  of  God,  in  particular,  is  yet 
written  upon  the  hearts  of  men.  Otherwise,  its  proclamation 
would  have  as  little  effect  upon  them  as  upon  horses  and  asses. 
But  it  lies  in  the  heart  in  very  dark  and  faded  characters.  The 
will  is  entirely  and  absolutely  alienated  from  God,  and  in  servi- 
tude to  sin  and  the  devil.     If  we  use  the  terms  good  and  evil  in 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  46.     Jena,  iii,  231  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  li,  144,  148. 

•  Op.  Ex.,  i,  80,  77,  84,  107.         =*  Supra,  p.  219.  *  Supra,  pp.  219,  263. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  35  I 

the  theological  sense,  and  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  civil  law — 
that  is,  as  indicating  that  which  is  good  in  the  sight  of  God,  and 
not  merely  that  which  is  outwardly  good  in  the  sight  of  men — 
we  must  confess  that  man  without  the  Holy  Spirit  can  do  nothing 
but  sin,  and  goes  on  from  sin  to  sin.'  The  scholastic  maxim  : 
"  Natural  things  are  complete  as  far  as  they  go  "  i^naturalia  adliuc 
esse  integra),  is  therefore  thoroughly  false.  The  highest  element 
in  man,  the  spiritual  i^spiritualia),  is  corrupted,  yea,  entirely 
extinguished  i^proisus  extincta),  so  that  there  remains  nothing 
but  a  corrupted  knowledge  (understanding)  and  a  will  that 
chooses  only  what  is  contrary  to  God.  "  Man,  in  divine  things, 
has  nothing  but  darkness,  evil  dispositions  "  {tenebras,  malitias), 
etc.  Luther  is  willing  to  assent  to  the  above  maxim  only  with 
the  understanding  that  there  shall  be  included  under  the  term 
"  naturalia  integra  "  nothing  more  than  the  simple  fact  that  man, 
sunken  in  wickedness  and  under  the  dominion  of  the  devil,  still 
has  free  will  and  power  to  build  houses,  administer  civil  offices, 
and  do  other  things  of  the  kind  within  the  sphere  which  has  been, 
according  to  Gen.  i.  26  sqq.,  made  subject  to  him.  The  corrup- 
tion which  holds  absolute  sway  in  that  portion  of  man's  nature 
most  directly  related  to  things  divine  and  truly  good  extends, 
furthermore,  through  the  soul  itself  and  through  the  body.  We 
have  even  lost  almost  entirely  the  original  dominion  over  the 
lower  creatures,  retaining  only  the  name,  or  empty  title.  We 
must  acknowledge  :  "  The  natural  powers  are  corrupted  to  the 
very  last  degree"  {^naturalia  esse  extreme  con-upta).  Here  is 
no  trifling  disease  or  defect,  but  utter  disorder  ("  extrema  ara^la  ") , 
the  like  of  which  is  found  nowhere  else  in  the  whole  creation, 
demons  excepted.'^ 

We  can  understand  from  the  above  how  Luther  could  declare 
that  the  divine  image  (the  "  imago  "  as  well  as  the  "  siuiilitudo  ") 
has  been  lost,  and  yet,  again,  that  it  has  been  "  almost  entirely 
lost'''' ;  for  that  which  yet  remains  to  man  was  also  a  part  of  the 
original  image  of  God.  The  evil  within  us,  which  has  displaced 
the  divine  image,  he  calls  an  image  of  the  devil  himself,  which 
the  latter  has  impressed  upon  us.     The  image  of  God  has  been 

'Comm.  ad  Gal.,  Hi,  8.  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  167,  268.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvi,  5654. 
Op.  Ex.,  ii,  164  sqq.,  265  sq. 

*  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  254  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  xix,    16  sqq.;   i,  85;  ii,  265. 


352  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

destroyed,  and  we  have  become  like  the  devil.  Man  must  be  an 
image  either  of  God  or  of  the  devil,  for  he  becomes  like  the  being 
in  accordance  with  whose  will  he  orders  his  life.  But,  inasmuch 
as  this  perversion  does  not  extend  so  far  as  to  exclude  the  possi- 
ble restoration  of  the  image  of  God,  Luther,  in  accordance  with 
Gen.  ix.  6,  allows  so  much  significance  to  still  attach  to  the 
original  character  of  man,  as  created  in  the  divine  image,  that 
God  can,  in  view  of  it,  yet  acknowledge  man  as  the  noblest  of 
creatures  and  forbid  the  wilful  taking  of  human  life.' 

During  the  Flacian  controversy  the  question  arose,  whether  sin 
has,  according  to  Luther,  become  (part  of^  tJie  Substance, 
Essence,  or  Nature  of  Man.  In  the  sense  in  which  these  terms 
are  understood  by  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  we 
must,  with  them,  answer  the  question  in  the  negative.  We  have 
already  investigated  the  meaning  of  the  term,  "  natural  sin,"  used 
by  Luther  as  a  synonym  for  original  sin.  He  means  nothing 
more  by  the  expression,  "  essential  sin"  {peccatum  essentiak), 
employed,  for  example,  in  the  Sermo  de  triplici  justitia  of  the 
year  1518.^  Original  sin  is  so  designated  in  contrast  with  actual 
sin  {peccatum  actuale)  only  in  so  far  as  the  former  is  related  to 
the  latter  as  a  native  energy  implanted  in  man  to  the  resultant 
course  of  his  outward  life  ;  or  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  said  that  the 
entire  natural  activity  of  man  produces  only  sin.  That  such  is 
the  meaning  of  the  term  is  very  clearly  manifest  from  the 
significance  of  the  contrasted  conception  of  "  essential  righteous- 
ness "  {Justitia  essentialis) .  The  expression,  "peccatuni  substan- 
tiate,'^ occurring  in  the  Confutatio  rationis  Latoinianae^  has  no 
•-'^lation  whatever  to  the  present  question ;  since  the  subject 
there  under  discussion  is  not  the  relation  of  sin  to  the  essential 
nature  of  man,  but  what  is  always  and  everywhere  the  essential 
nature  of  sin  itself,  as  discriminated  from  its  possibly  varying 
degrees,  relations,  working,  etc.  That  the  passage  in  the  Co7n- 
mcntary  upon  Galatians,^  which  declares  that  the  sinner  should 
feel  himself  a  sinner  and  accursed  not  only  "  adjectively,^'  but 
"  substantively^''  yea,  even  as  "  sin  itself  and  curse,"  is  not  to  be 
interpreted  as  making  the  sin  and  man's  nature  one  and  the 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  77,  81 ;  ii,  88 ;  i,  84,  79.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiii,  55,  152.     Op.  Ex., 
ii,  291. 

'•'Jena,  i,  177;  cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  2S5. 

^  Jena,  ii,  418  b.  *  Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  ii,  31. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  353 

same  thing,  is  very  evident  from  the  application  of  the  same 
language  to  Christ,  who  became  sin  and  a  curse  (substantively) 
for  us.  The  meaning  is,  therefore,  only  that  the  individual  must 
feel  himself  entirely  burdened  down  by  sin.  We  must  so  feel 
because  sin  dwells  within  us  :  Christ  so  felt  because,  having  no 
sin  Himself,  He  took  it  upon  Himself  and  His  conscience.  When 
Luther  declares,  in  his  Commentary  upon  Genesis^  that  sin  is  now 
part  of  the  nature  of  man  {de  essentia  hominis),  just  as  the 
original  righteousness  was  not  merely  a  superadded  endowment, 
but  "  de  essentia  hominis,''^  he  does  not  say  that  it  has  become 
that  nature  itself,  and  he  immediately  adds  the  remark,  that 
man's' nature  {nati/ra)  remains,  although  in  many  ways  corrupted 
{corrupta) ,  In  commenting  upon  Ps.  li.,  Luther  remarks  :  '^  We 
should  know  "  that  we  are  nothing  but  sin  "  j  and  again  :  Sin  is 
"  that  entirety  (^hoc  totiim)  which  is  born  from  father  and  mother, 
before  the  man  is  of  an  age  to  be  able  to  do  anything  or  to  think, 
but  from  which,  as  a  root,  nothing  good  in  the  sight  of  God  can 
be  produced."  But  he  has  here  in  view  the  inherited  moral  and 
religious  tendency  of  man,  as  opposed  to  the  scholastic  concep- 
tion of  it — and  not  those  elements  of  man's  nature  which  he 
elsewhere  always  expressly  represents  as  still  preserv^ed,  though 
weakened.  To  the  idea  that  sin  may,  according  to  Luther,  be 
said  to  be  the  nature  {substantia)  of  man,  we  may  further,  with 
perfect  propriety,  oppose  the  passage  of  his  Commentary  upon 
Psahn  xc.^  in  which  he  approves  of  the  application  of  the  term, 
"quality"  {qualitas),  or  even  "disease"  (^morbus),  to  original 
sin,  in  so  far  as  it  is  thereby  acknowledged  as  embracing  the 
greatest  possible  evil,  subjection  to  the  divine  wrath,  etc.  The 
thought,  that  it  should  be  called  our  nature,  is  directly  antago- 
nized by  the  fact  that  Christ  truly  received  His  human  nature 
from  the  defiled  physical  nature  of  His  human  progenitors 
through  Mary.  "It  is  truly  human  nature,  not  other  than  that 
in  us  " — only  cleansed  from  th^  leaven  of  sin.* 

The  question  may,  however,  still  occur  to  us,  whether,  allowing 
that  the  nature  of  man  in  its  other  elements  yet  remained  after 
the  Fall,  it  may  not  have  been  the  idea  of  Luther  that,  with  the 
thorough   corruption   of    his    moral   character,   original  sin  has 

'  Op.  Ex.,  i,  210.  *  Ibid.,  xix,  16. 

^  Ibid.,xviii,  320  sq.  *  Ibid.,ix,  174. 

23 


354  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

entirely  usurped  the  place  of  the  moral  nature.  Or,  it  may  be 
asked  how,  according  to  Luther,  the  nature  of  fallen  man  yet 
differs  from  that  of  the  devil.  Has  not  that  which  remains  in 
man  of  his  original  higher  nature  remained  likewise  in  the  devil, 
just  as,  in  the  actual  evil  which  has  in  man  usurped  the  place  of 
the  lost  higher  character,  he  bears  the  image  of  the  devil?  We 
reply,  that  Luther  never  made  any  attempt  to  attribute  to  man 
stick  a  corruption  of  the  moral  nature  as  he  ascribes  to  the  devil ; 
for  with  all  the  corruption  of  man's  nature  there  is  still  associated 
a  capacity  for  restoration,  of  which  there  can  be  no  thought  in 
the  case  of  Satan.  He  says  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  fallen  man  : 
"  It  was  corrupted,  but  in  such  a  way  that  it  could  be  restored." 
Thus  the  "  mass  of  sin"  {massa peccati)  was  purified  when  the 
Son  of  God  received  flesh  and  blood  from  the  body  of  Mary : 
and  thus,  also,  shall  we  be  entirely  purified  on  the  day  of  our  final 
redemption,  for  "  sin  and  death  are  separable  ills  "  (/.  e.,  sepa- 
rable from  us)  }  In  the  De  servo  arhitrio^  he  ascribes  to  men  a 
passive  aptitude  {aptitudo  passiva'),  by  virtue  of  which  they  are 
yet  capable  of  being  apprehended  and  saved  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  We  must  acknowledge,  however,  that  the  term,  "  apti- 
tude," does  not  throw  any  light  whatever  upon  the  question  as  to 
what  it  is  in  man  that  makes  such  a  restoration  possible  in  his 
case  while  impossible  for  Satan.  The  word  is  nothing  more  than 
another  mode  of  expressing  the  asserted  fact  "without  indicating 
its  limitations — giving  us  only  the  "  Dirss,'"'  and  not  the  "  JVie/ern  " 
of  the  possibility.  Nor  do  we  find  any  further  light  upon  the 
question  in  the  writings  of  the  Reformer.  We  can,  it  is  true, 
clearly  discover  a  difference  between  the  fallen  nature  of  man 
and  that  of  Satan  in  that  which  Luther  grants  to  the  former  in 
the  sphere  of  civil  righteousness  and  in  the  virtues  often  displayed 
among  heathen  nations,  in  which  there  is  certainly  not  absolute 
Satanic  corruption.  But  Luther  himself  does  not  seek  to  gain 
here  a  point  of  attachment  for  the  possibility  of  restoration  which 
he  maintains,  but  at  once  fixes  attention,  as  is  his  wont,  upon  the 
other  side,  i.  e.,  the  fundamental  corruption  which  must  be 
recognized  even  in  this  sphere  Of  man's  activity.  We  recall  the 
"  Synteresis^'  of  Luther's  earliest  sermons,^  and  observe  how 
entirely  he  has  abandoned  that  theory.     He  does  not  even  now, 

1  Op.  Ex.,  ix,  174.  2  Vol.  I.,  p.  485.  3  Vol.  I.,  p.  148. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  355 

it  is  true,  deny  to  man  a  desire  to  escape  perdition.  But  in  this 
he  recognizes,  not  a  secret  disposition  inclining  toward  true 
eternal  life  and  the  fellowship  of  God,  but  only  dread  of  penalty 
and  an  outgrowth  of  self-love.  True  and  real  distress  in  view  of 
hell  and  of  the  awful  misery  of  the  state  of  sin  is,  in  his  view,  a 
product  only  of  the  renewing  grace  of  God,  which  merely  finds  its 
point  of  attachment  in  man  in  the  "  aptitude  "  thus  abstractly 
conceived. 

If  we  now  inquire  more  closely  as  to  the  State  of  the  117//  in 
this  total  depravity,  we  shall  find  the  strongest  expressions  ever 
made  by  Luther  in  regard  to  it  still  repeated  and  maintained. 
The  free  will  is,  said  to  be  dead ;  it  is  nothing ;  it  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, certainly  the  devil's  will ;  under  its  direction  men  are  com- 
pelled to  live  as  captives  of  the  devil.'  But  in  the  method  of 
establishing  this  position  we  now  observe  an  important  difference. 
The  argument  based  upon  the  omnipotence  of  God  and  His 
foreknowledge  has  fallen  entirely  into  the  background,  in  com- 
parison with  that  drawn  from  the  character  of  fallen  man  as  such, 
/.  e.,  from  the  evil  which  dwells  within  us  from  birth  in  conse- 
quence of  the  fall  of  our  first  parents.  The  chief  interest  of  Luther 
always  centres  in  the  antagonism  displayed  against  all  claims  of 
man  to  merit  of  his  own,  by  which  he  may  contribute  to  his  own 
salvation,  and  against  all  unsettling  of  our  assurance  of  salvation 
through  Christ  alone  by  representing  it  as  obligatory  upon  us  to 
contribute  something"  to  this  end  by  our  own  efforts.  He  was 
compelled,  in  maintaining  this  fundamental  position,  to  deal  with 
the  theories  of  the  later  Scholasticism,  which  sought,  with  equal 
boldness  and  artfulness,  to  combine  a  gross  Pelagianizing  view  of 
the  natural  powers  of  the  will  with  the  assertion  that  we  are  saved 
only  by  grace.  He  often  finds  occasion  to  criticise  the  maxim 
which  had  been  generally  adopted  by  the  Papists,  that,  "  if  man 
does  his  part  {quod in  se  est),  God  then  grants  him  grace  " — that 
man,  by  works  of  his  own  good  will,  may  merit  for  himself  this 
grace  (by  which  we  are  to  understand  a  supernatural  disposition 
imparted  to  the  soul)  de  congruo,  and  may  then,  possessing  this 
grace,  perform  a  "  work  worthy  and  meritorious  of  eternal  life  " 
{opus  condignum  et  meritorium  vitae  aeteriiae) .  Into  such  great 
error,  says  he,  do  even  the  most  pious  among  the  Papists,  such 

1  Eri.  Ed.,  XXV,  73  sq. 


356  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

as  Gerson,  fall.  But  he  was  called  upon  to  combat  errors  still 
more  extreme  than  these ;  as,  for  example,  that  the  natural  man 
is  able  of  himself  to  fulfil  the  Law  of  God  in  the  main — quoad 
substantiam  facti — and,  particularly,  to  love  God  above  all  things, 
and  that  he  is  unable  of  himself  alone  to  attain  eternal  life  only 
because  to  this  end  the  Law  must  be  fulfilled  also  "  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  Giver,"  and  this  intention  of  the  divine  Law- 
giver demands  not  only  a  fulfilling  of  the  Law  by  love,  but  also  a 
fulfilling  of  it  in  the  supernatural  disposition  of  grace  and  by  a 
supernatural  love.  Thus,  says  Luther,  do  Scotus  and  Occam 
teach.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  follow  the  course  of  his 
counter-arguments.  The  question  was  one  of  fundamental  differ- 
ence in  the  estimate  of  moral  good  in  general.' 

As  to  that/zYr  will  tiihich  man  still  refaifis,  and  that  righteous- 
ness which  he  is  still  able  to  display  in  the  operations  of  such  free 
will,  Luther's  views  remain  the  same  as  expressed  in  his  earlier 
writings."  The  sphere  of  their  activity  lies  in  ciz'il  affairs,  affairs 
subject  to  reason  (res  rationi  si/fy'eetae),  the  things  designated  in 
Gen.  i.  26,  28 — in  brief,  secular  affairs,  as  contrasted  with 
spiritual  things,  or  with  "free  will  toward  God  and  in  (regard 
to)  the  salvation  of  souls."  The  maxim,  "  naturalia  Integra^'' 
cannot,  indeed,  be  accepted  even  in  regard  to  civil  affairs  {civilia). 
Great  are  everywhere  the  oversights  of  the  men  who  establish 
laws  in  this  sphere.  Yet,  within  a  certain  compass,  there  is  done 
in  such  matters  what  is  in  outward  conformity  to  the  Law.  In 
this  connection,  we  are  led  to  think  especially  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  lieathen.  Luther  does  not  always  speak  so  disparagingly 
of  this  as  in  his  strictures  upon  the  theses  of  Zwingli.''  He  too 
calls  Zenophon,  Themistocles,  Regulus,  Cicero,  etc.,  great  and 
excellent  men,  who,  endowed  with  distinguished  and  truly  heroic 
virtues,  administered  the  affairs  of  state  most  wisely  and  achieved 
glorious  results  for  the  welfare  of  their  nations.  He  recognizes  in 
Regulus,  Socrates  and  others,  fidelity  in  fulfilling  promises  made, 
and  truthfulness,  designating  the  latter  especially  a  most  exalted 
virtue.*     Nevertheless,  all  this  kind  of  righteousness,  he  declares, 

1  Comm.  ad.  Gal.,1,  183-190,  253  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  270  sq. ;  xix,  17.  Erl. 
Ed.,  XXV,  72  sqq.,  126  sq. 

*  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  150,  430  sq.,  484;  also  in  De  servo  arbitrio. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxii,  400  ;  cf.  also,  supra,  p.  189. 

*0p.  Ex.,  ii,  166;  xix,  18.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  73.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  255; 
ii,  130;  i,  182  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  357 

avails  nothing  before  God.  He  says  expressly,  indeed,  that  God 
rewards  also  such  works  and  virtues.  It  was  in  view  of  them, 
for  example,  that  the  Romans  received  from  God  their  vast 
empire.  Thus,  in  our  own  day,  those  nations  which  refrain 
from  murder,  adultery,  etc.,  receive  greater  blessings  from  God ; 
while  to  men  of  such  character  are  given  riches,  honor,  etc' 
But  such  persons  are  yet  by  no  means,  on  account  of  these  secular 
virtues,  good  in  the  sight  of  God.  They  are  not  even  thereby  in 
any  degree  made  capable  of  eternal  life.  They  receive  in  out- 
ward secular  blessings  the  reward  of  their  outward  righteousness. 
For,  says  he,  we  must  look  upon  the  heart.  And  in  the  hearts 
of  even  the  best  men  in  heathen  nations  he  finds  the  funda- 
mental sin,  pride ;  in  this  he  even  discovers  the  deepest  motive 
prompting  them  to  their  boasted  good  works.  It  was  the  desire 
to  be  held  in  honor  by  future  generations  which  made  them 
willing  to  die  for  tlieir  fatherland.  Even  in  the  men  whom  he 
himself  applauds  for  their  truthfulness,  there  was  concealed, 
beneath  an  appearance  of  holiness  and  righteousness,  hypocrisy 
in  relation  to  God  and  alienation  from  Him.  Theirs  was  not  the 
truthfulness  which  lies  in  the  hidden  parts,  and  in  which  God 
takes  pleasure  (Ps.  li.  6).  They  all  seek  to  rob  God  of  the  glory 
and  ascribe  it  to  themselves.  There  is  lacking  everywhere  among 
them  the  "  right  will  i^recta  voluntas)  toward  God."  Nowhere 
do  we  find  the  proper  final  cause  inspiring  their  conduct,  i.  <?., 
obedience  toward  God  and  love  for  others.  We  dare  not  inter- 
pret these  criticisms  as  indicating  that  Luther  would  trace  all  the 
good  works  of  the  heathen,  or  of  the  unregenerate,  simply  and 
directly  to  their  underlying  evil  motive.  On  the  contrary,  he 
expressly  says,  in  immediate  connection  with  the  above  strictures, 
in  regard  to  the  virtues  of  the  heathen  as  well  as  those  of  Chris- 
tians :  "  It  is  true  that  the  minds  of  both  (classes)  are  divinely 
impelled  "  ;  but  "  the  desire  for  glory  has  subsequently  corrupted 
these  divine  impulses  among  the  heathen."  The  good,  in  such 
instances,  he  regards  as  coming  from  God,  but  from  the  personal 
inclination  of  man  alone  comes  the  evil ;  and  it  is  according  to 
the  latter  entirely  that  the  character  borne  in  the  sight  of  God 
by  the  man,  with  all  his  deeds  and  undertakings,  is  decided.  In 
comimrison  with  this  attitude  of  the  will,  the  differences  observ- 

1  Jena,  ii,  425.     Op,  Ex.,  ii,  47,  166  ;  cf.  supra.  Vol.  I.,  p.  285. 


358  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

able,  even  in  matters  of  morality  and  immorality,  in  the  natural 
man,  have  no  significance  when  viewed  from  a  theological  stand- 
point.    Before  God  all  are  simply  sinners,  idolaters,  etc' 

It  follows,  that  all  have  absolutely  forfeited  eternal  life,  and  are 
absolutely  condemned  to  perdition,  unless  saved  by  Christ. 
Zwingli's  utterance  as  to  the  salvation  of  some  among  the  heathen 
is  a  thoroughly  pernicious  and  destructive  error.'^  In  one  pass- 
age, indeed,  Luther  discriminates  very  decidedly  between  the 
degrees  of  guilt  and  damnableness  attaching  to  simple  original 
sin,  before  it  has  issued  in  any  personal  transgressions  of  the  Law, 
and  such  actual  transgressions  themselves.  In  combating  the 
opinion,  that  unbaptized  children  dying  in  infancy  must  be  lost, 
he  declares :  "  Although  they  bear  inborn  sin,  nevertheless  it  is 
a  great  thing  that  they  have  never  sinned  against  the  Law.*  But 
he  makes  no  distinction  between  a  greater  or  less  degree  of 
damnableness  as  attaching  to  the  varying  extent  of  actual  trans- 
gressions. 

The  result  of  guilt,  or  the  judgment  impending  by  divine 
appointment  over  the  natural  man,  is  commonly  embraced  by 
Luther  under  the  terms,  "damnation"  {Verclainmtseiii),  or 
"  death  and  hell."  He  lays  great  stress,  in  such  connections, 
upon  bodily  death,  in  so  far  as  the  natural  man  in  it  experiences 
the  wrath  of  God ;  whereas  believers,  delivered  from  wrath,  find 
in  death  only  a  gentle  sleep,  yea,  pass  blissfully  away  before 
realizing  the  presence  of  death.  Thereafter,  in  hell,  is  really 
experienced  the  "  eternal "  death  of  those  accursed  of  God. 
But  the  latter  makes  its  presence  felt  already  in  this  life.  It  is 
the  terrors  of  eternal  death  which  sinners,  or  the  "  spiritually  " 
lost,  "  spiritually  "  dead,  experience  when  the  Law  smites  them 
to  the  heart.* 

In  this  condition  are  all  the  children  of  Adam,  without  excep- 
tion, until  they  are  delivered  by  grace  in  Christ. 

In  regard  to  Mary,  the  mother  of  the  Saviour,  Luther  had, 
when  speaking  of  her  in  the  Sermon  in  the  Church  Postils  already 
referred  to,  not  rejected  the  opinion  that,  in  order  to  be  pre- 
pared for  her  high  calling,  she  had  been  conceived  without  original 
sin,  or  without  lust  on  the  part  of  her  parents,  or  had,  at  least, 

*  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  272 sq.,  266  ;  xix,  18,  79.        ''■  Ibid.,  xi,  76  sqq.         '  Ibid.,iv,  78. 

*  Ibid.,  xviii,  284.     Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  153;  Hi,  363;  iv,  166;  xiv,  106. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  359 

been  sanctified  in  her  motlier's  womb.  He  even  himself  sup- 
poses that  her  soul  was,  at  all  events,  at  its  "  infusion  "  into  the 
embryonic  body,  purified  from  original  sin.  The  sermon  passed, 
in  this  form,  into  the  edition  of  the  Postils  published  in  1527. 
Luther  afterwards,  however,  taught,  in  regard  to  Mary,  simply  that 
she  was  herself  born  in  sin  from  sinful  parents,  just  as  we  are ; 
and  that  she  also  became  blessed  and  free  from  sin  by  faith.' 

Yet  the  possibility  of  being  delivered  from  the  state  of  sin  by 
faith  in  Christ  by  no  means  dates,  in  Luther's  view,  from  the 
time  of  the  new  covenant.  It  was  included  in  the  promises  of 
God  from  the  days  of  Adam  (cf.  the  following  section).  And 
even  then  already  Luther  looks  beyond  the  immediate  circle  to 
whom  the  promises  were  directly  given  to  the  heathen,  very 
many  of  whom,  instructed  by  the  Israelites,  became  partakers  of 
Salvation.  As  Naaman  through  the  agency  of  Elisha,  the  Nine- 
vites  through  Jonah,  the  centurion  Cornelius,  so  also  many  others 
— e.  g.,  Egyptian  princes  in  the  days  of  Joseph,  Babylonian  kings, 
and  other  oriental  nationalities — were  doubtless  permitted  to 
enjoy  with  God's  chosen  people  His  Word  and  justification  by 
faith.  ^  The  ardor  with  which  Luther  dwells  upon  this  thought  is 
very  significant  when  viewed  in  connection  with  his  earnestness 
in  denying  the  possibility  of  salvation  to  all  who  have  not  received 
the  Word  of  grace.  He  feels  impelled  to  extend,  at  least  as 
widely  as  possible,  the  revelation  of  grace,  even  before  the  time 
when  it  should  be  freely  offered  to  all  the  world. 

Intermediate  Section.    Transition  to  the  General  Subject  of 
Salvation  in  Christ. 

OLD    AND    new  TESTAMENT  REVELATIONS WORD  AND  VISIBLE    SIGN 

advantages    UNDER    NEW    COVENANT. 

We  have  found  frequent  occasion,  even  in  the  earlier  stages  of 
our  investigations,  to  observe  how  decidedly  Luther  asserts  an 
impartation  of  the  salvation  centering  in  Christ  as  realized  already 
in  the  time  preceding  the  Incarnation ;  and  it  i^,  in  fact,  very 
difficult  to   discriminate,  from   his  writings,   between   the  New 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  53  sqq.  ;  vi,  199,  189. 

^  Cf.  especially  Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  i,  304  sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  xi,  78  sq. 


360  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Testament  state  of  grace  and  that  which  had  been  previously 
possible. 

We  long  since  met  the  declaration  that,  from  the  very  time  of 
the  Fall,  and  then,  more  specifically,  within  the  bounds  of  Israel, 
which  was  by  no  means  under  the  dominion  of  the  Law  alone,  the 
promises  of  divine  grace  have  been  proclaimed,  by  which  all  who 
have  at  any  time  believingly  accepted  them  might  be  made  right- 
eous and  saved.  We  have  even  been  told  that  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  was  imparted  through  the  Word  of  Christ  just  as  well  before 
His  death  as  after  it.  By  this  it  is  not  meant  that  salvation  rests 
upon  the  Son  of  God,  without  reference  to  His  incarnation  and 
death.  On  the  contrary,  we  are,  from  the  very  beginning,  bidden 
to  fix  our  eyes  upon  the  incarnate  Saviour.  But  God  grants 
forgiveness  before  the  work  of  Christ  has  been  actually  accom- 
plished, just  because,  by  virtue  of  His  decree  and  the  purpose  of 
the  Son  Himself,  the  slain  Lamb  is  before  His  view  from  the 
very  beginning.  And  even  among  men  in  the  earlier  ages,  not 
merely  was  grace  announced  in  general  terms,  but  the  grace  defi- 
nitely associated  with  the  person  of  the  Son,  who  was  to  become 
incarnate  and  offer  Himself  as  a  sacrifice ;  and  this  announce- 
ment was  made,  not  only  in  figures,  but  in  express,  intelligible 
language.  "  Everything  must,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  depend  upon  the  bodily  coming  of  Christ"  (His 
coming  into  the  flesh).  But  He  had  thus  already  come  to  the 
ancient  Fathers  of  all  the  early  ages  in  their  faith.  They  had 
Him  in  spirit,  and  were  saved  through  Him  just  as  we  are. 
Hence  we  say  :  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day 
and  forever."  ' 

Full  forgiveness  and  the  enjoyment  of  grace  were  offered  to 
the  first  pair  immediately  after  the  Fall,  in  the  promise  concerning 
the  seed  of  the  woman.  In  faith  upon  this  promise,  they  also 
hoped  for' eternal  life  and  resurrection  from  the  dead,  as  do  we. 
God  had  further  announced  to  them,  also,  that  this  seed  of  the 
woman  was  true  God,  as  being  Lord  over  the  devil  and  his 
power,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  He  was  a  person  distinct  from 
the  One  giving  the  promise.  The  promise  was  then  made  more 
definite,  as  given  to  Abraham:  from  his  seed  should  come  the 
Promised  One,  and  in  Him  salvation  to  all  nations.     Luther  then 

*  Supra,  p.  76.     Erl.  Ed.,  x,  277  sq.  ;  vii,  260  sq.     Comm.  ad.  Gal.,ii,  138. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  36 1 

quotes  language  employed  by  Jacob,  which  implies  that  he 
already  knew  "  that  the  Son  should  come  into  the  flesh,  be  cruci- 
fied and  rise  again."  It  was  further  revealed  to  David,  that  from 
his  flesh  should  descend  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  like  God, 
sitting  upon  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.  That  He  should 
spring,  not  from  the  union  of  man  and  woman,  but  from  a  virgin, 
was  indicated  by  Isaiah  (vii.  14).  Eve  had  at  first  thought  that 
her  own  first-born  son  might  be  the  Saviour.'  The  patriarchs 
prayed  in  the  proper  spirit  and  in  faith,  although  their  faith 
looked  only  to  the  Christ  who  was  to  come,  whereas  we  now  pray 
in  the  name  of  Him  who  has  already  come.'^  The  Trinity  had 
also,  in  a  general  way,  been  revealed  to  them.^  God  had,  more- 
over, then  already  affixed  to  His  promise  visible  signs  of  His 
grace,  to  which  faith  was  to  cling,  just  as  we  now  have  "  visible 
signs  of  grace  "  in  the  sacranients  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  He  never  left  His  Church  without  external  signs,  by 
which  we  might  know  where  He  is  to  be  certainly  found.  The 
tree  of  knowledge  in  Paradise  served  this  purpose.  The  sacrifice 
which  we  then  find  Abel  offering  to  the  Lord  undoubtedly  rested 
upon  an  appointment  of  the  divine  Word.  God  had  probably 
given  a  new  visible  sign  for  the  encouragement  of  divine  worship 
at  the  time  of  the  revival  of  the  Church  under  Enos  (Gen.  iv. 
26).  After  the  flood  appeared  the  rainbow.  The  people  to 
whom  the  promise  had  been  given  finally  received  circumcision 
as  a  constant  sign,  to  be  perpetuated  yntil  the  coming  of  Christ. 
Of  this  sign  might  be  said,  in  relation  to  the  children  of  Abraham, 
what  is  now  true  of  baptism  among  Christians  :  It  was  effectual, 
brought  with  it  righteousness — not  as  an  external  ceremony,  but 
by  virtue  of  the  promise  connected  with  it — and  that,  too,  in  such 
a  way  that  even  circumcised  children  had,  through  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  receptive  faith  (required)  for  (the  accept- 
ance of)  the  promise.  Luther  thus' maintains  the  positions  taken 
in  his  earlier  writings  as  to  the  relation  between  the  sacraments 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  those  of  the  New  Testament.* 

We  see  already,   in  the  above,  what   Luther   regards  as   the 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xvi.  216.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  241,  249  sqq.;  iii,  67  sqq  ;  xi,  1 12;  i,  24 
sqq.,  2S5.     Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  348;  Vol.  II.,  p.  239. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  121.  3  Op.  Ex.,  i,  285  ;  V,  551  ;   xi,  112. 

*Ibid.,i,  315;  ii,  78  sq. ;  iv,  75-84.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  246,  265,  396  sq. ; 
Vol.  II.,  pp.  53,  343. 


362  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

essential  requirement  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Congregation,  or 
Church,  originating  in  Paradise:  "  These  things  being  possessed, 
namely,  the  Word,  and,  after  it,  the  visible  sign  divinely  appointed, 
the  Church  is  completed  (conficitur)  y  Adam  and  Eve  were 
brought  back  to  God  by  the  Word,  and  thus  :  "  This  was  the 
first  Church,  regenerated  by  the  Word  and  preserved  by  faith  in 
Christ."  Already  in  the  sons  of  Adam  appeared  the  division 
of  the  infant  society  into  the  merely  nominal,  hypocritical  Church 
and  the  true  Church  abiding  beneath  the  cross.  God  has  since 
then  always  preserved  the  latter,  although  often  in  great  weakness 
and  sometimes  but  a  remnant,  as  His  congregation.^  There  is 
for  the  patriarchs  of  old  and  for  us  but  one  truth  of  divine 
promise,  and  hence,  also,  but  one  faith,  one  Spirit,  one  Christ, 
one  Lord.- 

But  what  further,  then,  does  the  time  of  fulfilment,  or  of  the 
New  Covenant,  bring  with  it,  in  respect  to  the  revelation  and 
proffer  of  salvation? 

Luther  speaks,  in  this  connection,  of  the  free  proclamation  of 
the  message  of  grace  throughout  the  whole  world,  of  the  general, 
public,  fervent  publication  of  the  certified  divine  covenant.  The 
objective  material  of  faith  was,  moreover,  as  he  says,  by  no 
means  so  clearly  revealed  to  the  children  of  Israel  as  it  has  been 
to  us  since  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  Thus,  for  example,  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets  probably  understood  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  but  the  common  .people  were  left  in  their  simple  faith 
in  the  One  God,  and,  even  for  the  most  favored  holy  men  of 
ancient  times,  truth  of  great  importance  remained  unrevealed. 
Even  the  announcement  of  the  supernatural  conception  of  Christ, 
made  by  Isaiah,  was  not  perfectly  clear,  and  was  not  rightly 
understood  by  many  saints  of  old,  but  was  to  receive  complete 
illumination  only  through  the  New  Testament.  But  we  have,  in 
the  New  Covenant  particularly,  the  abundant  and  very  specific 
proffer  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  salvation,  with  all  its  bless- 
ings, to  each  individual  believer.^  The  saints,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  had  been  compelled  to  look  for  consolation  to  the 
general  promises.     Although  David  received  private  absolution 

'  Op,  Ex.,  ii,  79 ;  xviii,  279  sqq.  ;  i,  320  sqq.  ;  iii,  68,  55  sq.  ErJ.  Ed.,  xvi, 
217. 

^  Ell.  Ed.,  xlv,  2S6.  3  cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  266,  397  note. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  363 

after  one  defection,  for  his  other  sins  he  was  compelled  to 
depend  upon  the  general  absolution  and  proclamation  of  the 
divine  Word.  But,  now  that  the  Gospel  has  been  revealed,  it 
announces  forgiveness  of  sins  in  general  and  in  particular.  If 
we  consider  how  freely  the  message  of  salvation  is  now  pro- 
claimed, how  God  Himself  in  His  Word,  in  baptism,  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  in  the  administration  of  the  keys,  speaks  to  us  and 
assures  us  of  forgiveness,  as  the  minister  of  the  Church,  or  any 
Christian  brother,  in  God's  name  pronounces  absolution  and  calls 
back  from  the  very  misery  of  hell  the  despairing  soul,  we  must 
realize  what  exalted  glory,  what  great  power,  what  priceless  miracles 
we  possess  in  comparison  with  what  the  ancient  saints  enjoyed.^ 

The  saints  of  the  Old  Covenant  had  also  temporal  promises, 
such  as  we  no  longer  possess,  since  God  has  appointed  no  tem- 
poral kingdom  for  us.  We  have  enough,  however,  in  the  admo- 
nition and  assurance  :  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,"  etc. 
The  mention  of  the  spiritual  character  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
brings  at  once  into  view  the  difference  between  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church  and  that  under  the  old  economy.  In  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel,  and  thusemong  true  believers  of  that  day,  Christ 
had  a  temporal  kingdom,  with  laws  for  eating,  drinking,  etc.  In 
this  kingdom  prevailed  the  rule  of  natural  succession,  to  which 
the  priesthood  in  particular  was  bound.  In  the  congregation  of 
the  New  Covenant  Christ  has  His  spiritual  kingdom.  This  is 
established  by  no  law,  but  alone  through  the  Gospel  and  faith, 
Christ  with  His  peace  reigning  in  hearts  renewed  by  grace,  and 
His  Law  being  inscribed  upon  them.  The  Church  is  not  a  multi- 
tude of  persons,  who  must  be  held  together  by  external  govern- 
ment. It  is  not  bound  to  any  outward  succession.  Unbound  to 
places  or  persons,  it  is  everywhere  and  only  where  the  Word  is — 
a  congregation  of  the  spiritual  sons  of  Clirist.  Luther  could  con- 
sistently say  of  the  Church,  as  thus  described,  that  it  was  just 
beginning  to  be  actualized  in  its  true  character — that  it  began 
only  with  the  New  'Covenant.  The  "  people  of  Israel,"  or  "  the 
holy  synagogue,"  was  at  its  end  in  t*he  time  of  Christ,  and  the 
Church  in  its  beginning.  ^ 

*  Op.  Ex.,  xi,  141.  Supra,  p.  243.  Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  225  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  245, 
sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  269.     Briefe,  iv,  481.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  217  sq  ;  xi,  135  sq.,  293. 

'Op.  Ex.,  xi,  141.  Weimnr.  Pred.  xliv,  sq.  Op.  Ex.  iii,  56.  Erl.  Ed., 
xviii,  233  sq.;   xii,  49;   x,  275. 


364  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    I.UTHER. 

We  have,  therefore,  in  the  course  of  the  investigations  yet 
before  us,  to  treat,  with  Luther,  of  salvation,  as  first  clearly  and 
freely  offered  in  the  New  Covenant — as  the  incarnate  Son  of 
God  has  revealed  it  and  achieved  it  in  accordance  with  the 
decree  of  God  and  the  antecedent  promises — as  it  is  now  im- 
parted to  us  in  its  entire  fulness  and  in  connection  with  the 
special  means  distinctive  of  the  New  Covenant. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    CHRIST. 

Introductory. — Intimate  Relation  Between  the  Person  and 
THE  Work  of  Christ. 

Christ's  work    includes    sacrifice   and   continued    agency — 

INVOLVES    both    NATURES MYSTICAL  LTNION    ITS    GOAL "  SACRA- 

MENTUM  "  AND  "  EXEMPLUM  " CONTEMPLATION    OF   WORK    LEADS 

TO    DOCTRINE    OF    PERSON. 

The  intimate  and  interchangeable  relation  existing  between  \^ 
the  doctrine  of  the  Person  and  that  of  the  Work  of  Christ  is  very 
clearly  manifest  in  the  theology  of  Luther.  He  is  himself  at 
great  pains  to  impress  it  upon  us.  To  this,  attention  has  been 
called  in  connection  with  his  presentation  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity."  In  tracing  the  relation  of  the  work  of  Christ  to  His  ^^ 
person,  we  must,  moreover,  combine  with  the  zuoi-k  completed 
once  for  all  time  in  laying  the  foundations  for  the  salvation  of 
men,  the  continuous  activity  of  the  Saviour  upon  us  and  in  us  and 
that  which  is  thereby  effected  within  those  who  believe — inas- 
much as  the  latter  depend  also  upon  the  person  of  Christ  as  their 
necessary  premise  and  permanent  basis.  We,  too,  are  by  grace 
to  become,  through  Him,  the  sons  of  God  in  regeneration.  There-  '■ 
fore,  despite  all  the  specific  difference  between  Him,  as  the 
eternal  and  natural  Son  of  God,  and  us,  who  are  originally  sinful 
creatures,  His  own  image  is  again  to  be  impressed  upon  us. 
Of  all  that  He  has  we  may  boast  j'*  and  whatever  He  did  on  His   \^ 

1  Supra,  p.  311. 

'  Erl.  Ed.  xlv,  5;  XV,  392.  Upon  this  point,  and  upon  the  general  subject 
of  Luther's  Christology,  compare  the  rich  and  fervent  presentation  in  Dorner's 
Entwicklungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  ii,  510  sqq.,  with 
which,  however,  as  will  be  manifest  in  the  following  pages,  I  am  not  able  in 
all  points  to  agree. 

(365) 


366  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

own  account,  or  accomplished  for  us,  is  now,  by  virtue  of  His 
working  in  us,  to  find  a  copy  in  our  own  lives  and  conduct. 

This  relation  between  our  own  conduct  and  the  working  of 
Christ,  as  the  source  and  pattern  of  our  Christian  activity,  will 
not  only  be  more  fully  revealed  in  our  review  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  life  of  the  regenerate,  but  will  throw  light  also  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  the  work  of  Christ  Himself. 

The  relation  of  the  work  of  Christ  to  His  person,  or  nature,  is  t- 
such  as  to  involve  equally  His  divijie  and  His  hutnan  nature,  and 
that  in  such  a  way  that  the  two  must  be  conceived  as  combined 
in  the  most  intimate  personal  unity.     The  object  in  view  in  the  v 
work  of  Christ  is,  as  will  be  hereafter  more  explicitly  set  forth, 
the  providing  of  a  ransom  for  our  sin.     This  must  be  one  more 
exalted   than   could  be  furnished   through   angels  or  prophets, 
none  less  exalted  than  that  to  be  rendered  by  the  Son  of  God.' 
The  object  was  the  conquest  and  removal  of  sin,  law,  death  and  ^ 
hell,  and  the  bestowal  of  eternal  life  and  righteousness.     For  this  i/ 
was  required  an  eternal,  divine  Person — one  who  should  be  by 
nature  God,  with  invincible,  eternal  righteousness,  power   and 
grace.^     In  order  that  sin  and  death  may  be  outweighed,  God  V 
Himself  must  be  included  in  the  counter-weight  of  the  scales. 
Thus,  Christ  not  only  lifts  off  the  burden  of  sin  and  death,  butw 
gives  also  eternal  life.''     This  positive  work  especially,  the  giving  ^ 
of  grace  and  life,  the  doing  of  that  which  Jesus  promises  in  John 
xiv.  13,  14,  belongs  to  Him  alone,  because  He  is  God.*     But  the  v 
required  ransom  must  be  paid  by  Jesus,  the  conflict  with  sin, 
death  and  the  devil  waged  in  His  death.     His  blood  must  bew 
laid  upon  the  scale  of  the  balance.     But  it  would  be  possible  for  ^ 
Him  to  suffer  and  die  only  if  He  were  truly  a  man.     We  must,  v/ 
moreover,  have  a  Saviour  who  is  also  our  brother,  of  our  own  flesh 
and  blood,  like  to  us  in  all  things,  save  that  He  must  be  without 
sin.    As  such.  He  represents  me  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  as  one 
who  is  also  my  flesh  and  blood,  yea,  my  brother.     It  is  only  thus 
that  He  belongs  to  us,  and  that  we  can  appropriate  Him  to  our- 
selves.    Thus,  having  become  like  to  us  in  all  things,  from  His 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  316. 

'Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  ii,  20-25,  ^57  '■>  ^^-  supra  Vol.  I.,  p.  414. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  3;  xxv,  312  sq. 

*  Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  i,  51  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  123. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  367 

very  conception  in  the  womb,  and  having  gone  through  the  whole 
course  of  our  human  Hfe,  He  has  also  purified  and  hallowed  our 
entire  human  experience — all  our  natural  acts,  our  eating,  drink- 
ing, sleeping,  waking,  toiling,  etc. — so  that,  although  our  life  is 
unclean  by  virtue  of  our  flesh  and  blood,  it  becomes  for  His  sake 
pleasing  to  God,  yea,  a  veritable  sanctuary.  By  mingling  Himself  i— 
with  our  flesh  He  has  become,  as  it  were,  the  divine  leaven  in 
the  corrupted  mass.' 

We  may  include  the  entire  conte?it  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  — • 
work  and  person  of  Christ,  and,  indeed,  the  whole  doctrine  of 
salvation  as  he  conceived  it,'^  under  the  language  of  one  of  his 
earliest  letters,  according  to  which  the  believer  may  say  to 
Christ :  "  Thou  hast  taken  me  to  Thyself,  and  hast  given  Thyself 
to  me ;  thou  hast  taken  to  Thyself  what  Thou  wast  not,  and  hast 
given  to  me  what  I  was  not  " — or  under  the  declaration,  found  in 
the  Freiheit  eines  Christejimejischen ,  that  "  what  Christ  has, 
becomes  the  property  of  the  soul,  and  what  the  soul  has,  becomes 
the  property  of  Christ."  In  order  that  there  may  come  to  us  ' 
from  Him  righteousness,  life  and  heavenly  blessedness,  and  that 
our  sins  may  in  Him  be  blotted  out.  He  must  be  the  Son  of 
God  :  in  order  that  He  might  take  our  sins  upon  Himself  and 
might  really  belong  to  us.  He  must  be  of  our  flesh  and  blood. 
In  language  the  loftiest  and  boldest,  the  Church  Fostils  assert : 
God  empties  out  Himself  and  Christ  upon  us,  and  pours  Himself 
into  us,  and  draws  us  up  into  Himself,  so  that  He  becomes 
entirely  and  completely  humanized,  and  we  become  entirely  and 
completely  deified.^ 

In  tracing  the  historical  development  of  Luther's  doctrine  of 
the  combined  work  and  person  of  Christ,  we  must  go  back  to 
the  period  of  his  special  devotion  to  the  study  of  Mysticism.* 
The  Christ  for  us  was  never,  for  him,  lost  in  the  Christ  /;/  us. 
Although  he  represents  that  which  we  are  to  experience,  undergo 
and  suffer  in  Christ  as  analogous  to  the  experiences  of  Christ 
Himself,  yet  he  always  recognized  in  the  latter,  not  a  mere 
pattern,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  immediate  objective  occasion 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  1.  c;  xxv,  1.  c.     Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  ii,  1.  c.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlv, 
318;  xviii,  225;  XX,  157  sqq.      Op.  Ex.,  vi,  35. 
*  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  163,  170. 

3  Briefe,  i,  17.     Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  414.     Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  238. 
*Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  169  sq. 


36S  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

for  the  former,  and  based  upon  them  especially  the  canceling  of 
guilt,  upon  which,  for  him,  all  else  depended.  But  he  very  soon 
advanced  to  a  sharper  discrimination  between  the  two.  We 
may  trace  this  process  along  the  line  of  his  proposition,  that 
Christ  and  His  sufferings  for  us  are  a  "  sacramenf''  and  an  v' 
''  exai/ip/e"  '  The  former  he  always  places  first,  basing  the  latter 
upon  it.  In  it,  however,  he  combines  directly  the  two  concep- 
tions, that  in  the  death  of  Christ  our  sin  is  canceled,  and  that 
through  His  death  our  own  inner  crucifixion  is  to  be  accomplished 
in  our  fellowship  with  Him,  and  a  new  man  to  be  awakened 
within  us.  In  the  power  of  the  new  life  thus  secured,  we  are 
then  constantly  to  imitate  the  example  of  Christ.  Thus,  after 
all,  the  former  conception  is  not  as  yet  so  fixed  in  its  distinct 
significance  as  we  find  it  at  a  later  date.  In  a  sermon  of  the 
year  15 18,  entitled  De  passione  Christi^  Luther  at  first  dwells 
only  upon  the  idea  that  Christ  by  His  death  as  a  "  sacramentum" 
proclaims  our  spiritual  death,  and  Himself  slays  our  old  man, 
that  has  lived  so  sinfully,  and  awakens  the  new  man — although 
he  afterwards  asserts  also,  that  Christ  assumed  for  us  the  charges 
resting  against  us,  and  thus  vanquished  all  our  sins^  and  swallowed 
them  up  in  Himself.  We  find  a  similar  treatment  of  the 
subject  in  the  passages  above  referred  to.^  The  less  the  work 
which  Christ  accomplished  primarily  and  objectively  for  the 
cancelation  of  our  sins  is  separately  emphasized,  and  the  more 
the  eye  is  turned  directly  upon  our  own  inner  crucifixion  with 
Him,  the  less  readily  could  faith,  as  distinguished  from  self- 
surrender  or  resignation,  be  clearly  coiiceived  in  its  peciiliar  and 
essential  character,  as  simple  trust  in  the  Saviour.  The  "  resig- 
nation "  here  spoken  of  soon  disappears,  and  we  find  no  mention 
of  it,  for  example,  in  the  Frcihcit  eincs  Christenmenschen,  where 
faith  appears  distinctly  as  a  positive  apprehension  of  Christ  and 
His  message  of  salvation.  Yet  here,  too,  that  which  Christ  does 
for  us  and  the  positive  force  which  He  introduces  into  our  lives 
are  regarded  as  standing  in  the  most  intimate  possible  connec- 
tion. Still  later,  in  a  sermon  of  Good  Friday,  1522,^  Luther, 
while,  indeed,  first  declaring  that  Christ  in  His  death  endured 
the  torments  which  we  had  merited,  proceeds,  in  attempting  to 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  173.  '  Loscher  ii,  587  sqq. 

'  Vol.  I.,  p.  171  sq.  ♦ErI.  Ed.,  xvii,  74,  77. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  369 

direct  us  in  our  fear  of  death,  to  speak  chiefly  of  our  surren- 
dering ourselves  wiHingly  to  death  according  to  the  example  of 
Christ,  declaring  that  God  says  to  us  :  "  Accept  the  punishment, 
and  thou  shalt  thus  become  pure,"  and  that  death  is  thus  no 
longer  a  punishment  for  us,  but  a  sweet  medicine.  Luther  still 
speaks  in  this  way,  although  he  had  already  long  before  '  taught 
simply  that  we  are  to  cling  to  Christ,  and  to  believe  firmly  that 
in  Him  all  things  are  overcome.  The  turning  point  is  fully  and 
finally  reached  only  in  antagojiizing  the  mysticism  of  Carlstadt.'^ 
An  inner  and  harmonious  conception  of  these  two  elements  of 
the  work  of  Christ  we  shall  still  find  characteristic  of  Luther ; 
but,  in  this  harmony,  the  distinct  significance  of  each  is  hence- 
forth more  clearly  seen.  This  will  become  further  evident  under 
the  discussion  of  the  application  of  salvation.  We  shall  meet 
again  the  distinction  between  sacra?nentu7n  and  exejnplum  in 
that  drawn  between  '■^  donvm  "  and  ''  exe77iplum"  ^  In  the  term 
"  donum  "  are  again  included  the  benefits  of  salvation ;  but  of 
these,  the  first-mentioned  is,  that  all  the  past  sins  committed  by 
those  who  believe  are,  so  far  as  their  guilt  is  concerned,  blotted 
out." 

We  have  been  speaking  of  the  view  of  the  Work  of  Christ 
revealed  in  the  writings  of  Luther.  But  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case,  with  increasing  clearness  of  apprehension  as  to  His 
work,  His  Person,  in  its  essential  character  as  historically  revealed, 
became  the  more  distinctly  and  cjearly  apprehended  by  the  eye 
of  faith.  And  it  was  just  in  the  midst  of  the  conflicts  aroused  by 
the  Carlstadt  theories  that  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Saviour's 
person  assumed  its  more  precise  form,  i.  e.,  in  the  controversies 
upon  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Throughout  the  entire  discussion,  however,  the  controlling  motive 
in  Luther's  mind  continued  to  be  his  desire  to  have  a  Saviour,  in 
whose  person,  through  a  true  union  of  the  divine  and  the  human 
natures,  should  be  assured  the  needful  prerequisites  for  the 
accomplishment  of  His  saving  work. 

It  remains  for  us  now  to  examine  separately  and  in  detail  the 
allied  doctrines  of  the  person  and  the  work  of  Christ. 

^  Cf.  e.  g.,  the  dissertation  of  A,  D.  1519.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  260  sqq. 

*  Supra,  p.  31    sq.  '  Cf.  also,  Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  3. 

*  Comm.  ad   Gal.,  ii,  330. 

24 


370  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

I .   The  Person  of  Christ. 

DIVINITY   AND    HUMANITY RELATION   OF  TWO   NATURES THE   UNION 

A    MYSTERY    NECESSITATED     BY    THE     FALL DIVINE     NATURE     NOT 

MODIFIED HUMAN      NATURE      DEVELOPED CAN     DIVINF,     NATURE 

SUFFER? IS     THE     BODY    OMNIPRESENT? INSEPARABLE     UNION 

"  COMMUNICATIO    IDIOMATUM  " DOES    LUTHER  TOO  HIGHLY  EXALT 

THE    HUMAN    NATURE? PECULIARITY    OF    HIS    DOCTRINE. 

That  Christ  is  "  true  God,  bora  of  the  Father  in  eternity,  and  \y 
also  true  man,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary"  {Siiialkr  Cafcciiis/Ji), 
was  ever  for  Luther  a  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian  faith. 

In  proof  of  the  claim  that  Christ  is  not,  as  the  Arians  teach, 
"  God  in  name,"  but  a  "  hatiiral,  or  cssentiaV  God,  he  appeals 
especially  to  the  above-mentioned  works  which  are  attributed  to 
the  Saviour,  and  which  presuppose  a  divine  nature.  The  whole 
Godhead,  says  he,  dwells  in  Christ  bodily  and  completely. 
Whoso  sees  Him,  sees  the  Father.  Thus  our  faith  is  entirely 
comprehended  in  this  Christ.  I  need  now  no  longer  flutter 
toward  heaven  in  my  thoughts.  If  I  only  hear  that  Christ  is  the 
true  God,  I  find  that  better  part  which  IVIary  (Lk.  x.  42)  chose, 
and  need  seek  nothing  more.' 

This  God  I  have  truly,  according  to  Luther,  /;/  my  Jut  man  flesh  ^ 
and  bhwd.     There  is  no  difference  whatever  between  His  flesh  • 
and  ours,  except  that  His  is  without  sin.     Yea,  the  more  pro-  i. 
foundly  we  can  bring  Him  into  our  flesh,  the  better.     He  is  much  ' 
nearer  to  us  than  was  Eve  to  Adam.-'     It  was  needful  for  Him  to  V 
be  begotten,  according  to  His  human  nature,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  a  man,  in  order  that  He  might  be  free  from  original 
sin.''     Luther  clung  also  to  the  opinion,  prevalent  in  the  Middle 
Ages,  that,  as  Mary  conceived  without  sin,  so  she  brought  forth 
also   without    pain  or  physi(!:al    injury,   and  always    remained    a 
virgin.     As  a  bee   deftly  extracts  the  honey  from  a  flower  with- 
out injuring  the  latter,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  caused  Christ  to  emerge 
from  the  womb  of  the  Virgin,  because  He  brought  with  Him  a 
true  fleshly  nature,  but  without  sin.     But  Luther  maintains  most 
stoutly,  that  the  Child  in  the  womb  of  its  mother  received  from 

iCf.,  e.  g.,  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  120-126. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  X,  131  sq. ;  vi,  155;  i,  197.  '^Qi.  supra,  p.  347. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  37  I 

her  everything  which  any  natural  child  receives  from  its  mother, 
only  without  sin — that  the  \' irgin  "  was  required  to  contribute  of 
her  seed  and  natural  blood  " — that  He  did  not  pass  through  her 
like  a  reflection,  or  shadow,  or  as  a  ray  of  the  sun  passes  through 
painted  glass — that,  in  the  act  of  delivery  itself,  the  womb  of  Mary 
fulfilled  its  natural  office  (only  without  receiving  any  injury)  — 
that  a  body  was  not  made  in  heaven  for  Christ,  and  then  passed 
through  the  body  of  Mary.  In  these  specifications,  he  had  in 
view  Anabaptist  and  Schwenkfeldian  theories.  He  regards  it, 
further,  as  significant  that  Christ's  ancestor,  Judah,  to  whom  he 
traces  the  lineage  of  Mary  also,  was  guilty  of  incest.  It  was 
appointed  that  Christ  should  receive  His  human  nature  from  flesh 
thus  fearfully  defiled,  in  order  thus,  although  it  was  for  His  own 
person  purified  in  the  act  of  conception,  to  become  a  sinner  for 
us.  Luther  calls  Christ,  with  reference  to  this  human  nature, 
also  "  created,"  and  considers  this  as  an  expression  inaccurate 
only  when  used — as  in  the  ignorant  ravings  of  Schwenkfeld — in 
the  abstract  title,  "creature"  {Geschopf) }  Among  the  elements 
which  belong  to  the  true  humanity  of  Jesus,  Luther  emphasizes 
particularly  the  soul.^  And,  as  he  ascribes  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  He 
lived  on  earth,  the  truly  human  experiences  of  eating,  drinking, 
waking,  sleeping,  etc.,  he,  even  more  distinctly,  represents  Him 
as  entering  into  the  most  profound  agonies  of  soul  which  are 
endured  by  man  when  burdened  with  sin  and  distressed  at  heart. 
This  is,  indeed,  the  very  chief  element  in  his  doctrine  of  the 
atoning  work  of  Christ. 

But  what  is  Luther's  conception  of  the  Mutual  Relations  of  the 
Tivo  Natures  as  united  in  the  Perso7i  of  Christ? 

This  union  he  always  regards  as  a  mystery  absolutely  tran- 
scending our  powers  of  understanding.  He  designedly  emphasizes 
the  broad  chasm  separating  humanity  and  divinity,  in  order  the 
more  to  magnify  the  amazing  grace  displayed  in  the  act  of  con- 
descension by  which  God  entered  the  former.  There,  says  he, 
two  diverse  things,  the  Creator  and  creature,  which  are  as  far 
apart  as  nothing  and  something,  or  everything,  are  nevertheless 
united.     "  There  a  proportion  has  been  established,  which  was 

lErl.  Ed.,  X,  305  sq.  ;  xxxvii,  71;  xli,  191 ;  xlv,  284.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  281. 
Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  298;  x,  131 ;  xxix,  53;  xlv,  317;  xvi,  236  (A.  D.  1546);  xlv, 
316  sq.  ;  Ixiii,  339  sq. ;  x,  131.     Op.  Ex.,  ix,  173  sq.     Jena,  i,  568  b,  sq. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  364  ;  xxiv,  323. 


37  2  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

impossible  (/.  <;'., for  reason),  between  the  finite  and  the  infinite."  ' 
Of  an  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  effected  not  merely  in  the 
interest  of  human  redemption,  but  originally  necessary  for  the 
realization  of  the  ideal  of  manhood,  he  has  no  thought.  The 
idea  elsewhere  expressed,  that  subsequent  creations  of  God,  after 
the  completion  of  the  original  creative  work,  are  consequences 
of  the  Fall,  he  applies  also  to  the  birth  of  God's  Son  from 
human  flesh.^  When  he  represents  Lucifer  as  taking  umbrage 
already  at  the  incarnation  of  the  Son,  he  means  a  prevision 
of  the  incarnation,  as  a  fact  which  should  contribute  to  the 
redemption  of  men  from  the  sin  and  misery  which  were  also 
foreseen.^  When  he  says  that  all  words  receive  in  Christ  a  new 
meaning,  as,  for  example,  "  creature  "  indicates  no  more  some- 
thing separated  from  God,  but  something  inseparably  united  with 
God,  and  that,  accordingly,  we  must  now  learn  to  speak  with 
new  tongues,  he  does  not  mean  thereby  that  we  must  receive 
new  disclosures  concerning  created  things  in  general,  their  specific 
nature  and  their  relation  to  God  :  he  speaks  only  of  that  special 
created  thing  which  has  in  Christ  become  specifically  so  unified 
with  God  that  we  may  acknowledge,  despite  the  apparent  contra- 
diction in  terms,  even  the  maxim  :  "Christ  is  a  creature."  *  The 
theophanies  in  human  form  in  the  days  of  the  patriarchs  have,  in 
the  view  of  Luther,  a  significant  relation  to  the  future  incarna- 
tion. In  them  appears  the  "  Son  of  God  (who  is)  to  be  incar- 
nated "  {^incarnandiis)}'  But  this  by  no  means  involves  the  idea 
that  such  theophanies,  together  with  the  actual  incarnation, 
would  have  occurred  had  sin  not  entered.  He  regards,  finally, 
as  peculiarly  significant,  the  creation  after  the  likeness  of  God. 
He  calls  it  an  absurd  proposition,  or  contradiction  in  terms,  to 
assert  that  man,  made  in  the  image  of  God,  does  not  differ  in  his 
animal  life  from  the  beasts.  He  finds,  on  the  other  hand,  in  this 
characteristic  of  man  an  indication  that  God  would  reveal  Him- 
self to  the  world  in  the  man,  Christ.®  But  we  must  here  be  on 
our  guard  lest  we  attribute  to  Luther  himself  the  conclusion,  that 
what  was  already   indicated  at  the   creation,  and   even  in  the 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  2.     Jena,  i.  574  b.     Op.   Ex.,  vii,  148  sq. :   cf.  also  supra, 
p.  145  sq. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  i,  98.  '  Supra,  p.  331. 

*  Jena,  i,  568  b,  569,  568  a.  *0p.  Ex.,  viii,  171. 

*  Ibid.,  i,  109. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  373 

original  nature  of  man,  would  necessarily  have  come  to  pass  even 
though  sin  had  not  appeared ;  for  he  does  not  here  carry  out  the 
idea  to  such  a  length,  and  he  elsewhere  decidedly  rejects  the 
conclusion  in  question.  That  there  must  lie  in  human  nature 
itself  some  point  of  attachment  for  the  impartation  of  divinity, 
we  must  infer  from  the  impartation  of  divine  life  which  is  to  be 
actually  effected  in  the  case  of  all  believers.  But  the  thoughts 
which  may  here  occur  to  us,  Luther  himself  does  not  thus  pursue. 
The  impartation  of  the  divine  has  its  eternal  cause  and  possi- 
bility entirely  in  God,  by  virtue  of  His  love,  which  is  in  its  very 
nature  condescension.  The  "  humility  (humiliation)  of  the  Son 
of  God,"  at  which  the  proud  angels  took  offence,'  is  an  essential 
attribute  of  God.  But  Luther  himself  knows  of  no  necessity  in 
the  original  nature  of  man  which  would  have  required  God  to 
condescend  to  the  extent  of  incarnation  in  human  form.  Whilst 
declaring  the  occasion  of  the  greatest  act  of  divine  mercy,  the 
birth  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  ha.ve  been  the  misery  of  our  sinful 
state,'^  he  always,  when  speaking  of  the  development  which  would 
have  marked  the  career  of  man  had  sin  not  interfered,  represents 
simply  that  man  would  then,  after  the  divine  life  which  he  would 
have  led  even  upon  earth,  have  passed  over  into  perfect  spiritual 
life  in  manly  innocence  and  heavenly  glory .^  He  still — despite 
the  divine  image  in  man,  and  notwithstanding  the  loving  nature 
of  God — regards  the  natural  chasm  between  God  and  the  creature 
as  too  great  to  allow  the  thought  that,  without  the  dire  necessity 
introduced  by  sin,  it  would  have  been  needful  for  the  loving  God  to 
condescend  to  that  union  with  the  creature  which  has  now  been 
effected  in  the  One  Saviour,  and  which  ever  remains  essentially 
different  from  the  impartations  of  divine  life  granted  to  believers. 

In  what  light,  then,  are  we  to  regard  the  two  natures  after  their 
union  has,  by  an  inscrutable  miracle,  been  actually  accomplished 
in  the  incarnation  of  God,  the  Son? 

Luther  always  thought  of  the  union  as  effected  in  such  a  way 
that,  when  Christ  began  to  be  man,  He,  at  the  same  time,  also 
began  to  be  God.*  Nor  will  he  ever  tolerate  the  idea  that  when 
God  thus  became  incarnate  any  change  whatever  occurred  in 
Him.     He  denies,  especially,  that  this  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 

'Op.  Ex.,  i,  14!.  Mbid.,  i,  98. 

'  Supra,  pp.  340,  343.  *  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  196  (A.  D.  1521). 


374  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

declaration  of  Phil.  ii.  5  sqq.,  in  which  Christ  is  said  to  have 
humbled — or  emptied — Himself.  VVe  have  already  considered 
the  explanation  of  this  passage  which  he  adopted  as  early  as 
A.  D.  15 18.'  After  having  pronounced  it  a  "  dark  "  saying,'-  he, 
in  a  sermon  appearing  in  1525/  still  further  expounds  it.  The 
language  of  the  entire  passage  has,  in  his  view,  no  relation  to  the 
two  natures  in  Christ,  nor  to  His  nature  in  general.  Surely 
Christ  did  not  become  in  nature,  or  kind,  a  servant.  He  under- 
stands the  "emptying  Himself"  as  indicating  only  the  deport- 
ment of  Christ — that  He  bore  Himself  in  humility  and  in  the 
most  menial  services  of  love,  and  that,  too,  during  His  entire 
career  on  earth ;  just  as  we  Christians,  who  hold  the  most  exalted 
possessions,  should  conduct  ourselves  toward  our  neighbors. 
Accordingly,  Christ  had  the  divine  nature,  even  while  thus  de- 
porting Himself.  With  the  divine  nature,  He  still  had  also  the 
divine  deportment.  He  was  in  the  form  of  God — had  this  form 
naturally,  as  well  as  the  essential  divine  nature.  It  properly 
belonged  to  Him  from  eternity.  Of  the  form  of  a  servant,  Paul 
does  not  say  that  Christ  was  in  it,  but  only  that  He  "  took  it 
upon  "  Himself.  Yet  Christ  did  not  deport  Himself  outwardly 
as  a  God,  did  not  take  upon  Himself  the  divine  form  in  which 
He  was  (although  it  belonged  to  Him,  and  was  involved  in  His 
very  nature,  yet  He  did  not  employ  it  in  His  intercourse  with  the 
men  to  whom  He  ministered) .  Thus,  we  can  say  also  of  God 
Himself,  when  He  is  angry,  that  He  hides  Himself,  does  not 
permit  us  to  see  the  divine  deportment  (which  yet  essentially 
characterizes  Him).  In  general,  Luther  says:  Whatever  is  said 
of  the  humiliation  of  Christ  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  man ;  for 
divine  nature  can  be  neither  humbled  nor  exalted."*  Upon  this 
point  we  shall  find  no  change  in  the  later  writings  of  the  Re- 
former. Even  when  he  speaks  of  a  participation  of  the  divine 
nature  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  he  by  no  means  admits  that 
any  change  whatever  has  been  experienced  by  the  divine  nature 
itself.  God  "  descends  without  change  or  alteration  of  His 
divinity,"  whilst  He  at  the  same  time  "  remains  eternally  above."  ° 
The  further  development  of  Luther's  doctrine  after  the  contro- 
versy with  Carlstadt  and  the  Sacramentarians  is,  however,  at  once 
brought  into  view  when  we  inquire  more  closely  as  to  the  mutual 

'  Vol.  I.,  p.  416  sq.  2  Ell.  Ed.,  vii,  196.  ^  Ibid.,  viii,  156  sqq. 

*Ibid.,  vii,  185,  A.  D.  1521.  ^  jbid.,  xlvi,  328. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  375 

relations  existing  between  the  two  natures  in  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ. 

The  first  indication  of  more  extended  discrimination  is  seen  in 
the  fact  that  Luther,  while  always  maintaining  the  possession  of 
the  true  divinity  and  true  humanity  by  Christ  from  the  very 
beginning  of  His  life,  yet,  in  certain  passages,  appears  to  be  chiefly 
concerned  to  decide  when  the  Scriptures  refer  to  the  humanity 
and  when  to  the  divinity  of  Christ.  This  is  noticeable  in  the 
passage  of  the  year  15  21  above  cited,'  and  in  the  Sermon  for  St. 
James'  Day,''  which,  although  first  appearing  in  the  Church 
Posti/s  in  1527,  undoubtedly,  in  view  of  expressions  which  it 
contains  concerning  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  appeared  before 
A.  D.  1525.  His  motive  in  these  discussions  is  to  guard  against 
the  opinion  that,  in  view  of  such  passages  as  Matt.  xx.  23,  Christ 
cannot  be  acknowledged  as  true  God,  while,  at  the  same  time, 
avoiding  the  conclusion  of  those  who,  to  escape  the  former  infer- 
ence, so  interpret  the  expressions  referred  to  as  to  make  of  Christ 
an  '•'  omnipotent  man,"  to  the  detriment  of  His  true  human 
nature. 

Concerning  the  humanity  of  Christ,  he  now  says,  further,  that, 
as  in  the  case  of  any  other  holy  man,  it  did  not  at  all  times  co?i- 
sider,  purpose,  or  observe  all  things  ;  that  Christ  did  not  in  His 
heart  always  have  all  things  in  view,  but  looked  upon  them  as 
God  led  Him  and  brought  them  to  His  notice.  Although  thus 
acknowledging  that  the  all-knowing  and  all-seeing  God  was 
present  in  person  in  Christ,  he  infers  from  it  for  Christ  as  a  man 
merely  that  He  was  full  of  grace  and  wisdom,  that  He  might  be 
able  to  judge  and  teach  in  regard  to  everything  which  came  to 
His  notice.  Hence,  we  cannot  substitute  for  the  words  "  the 
Son  knoweth  not,"  in  Mk.'xiii.  22,  the  statement,  "  He  does  not 
wish  to  declare  it."  ^  The  comments  of  A.  D.  15  21  upon  Luke 
ii.  52,  are  here  in  point:  ^  The  statement  that  Christ  increased 
in  spirit  and  wisdom  is  to  be  understood  of  His  humanity,  which 
was  an  instrument  and  house  of  the  divinity.  Although  He  was, 
indeed,  at  all  times  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  the  Holy  Spirit  did 
not  at  all  times  move  Him,  but,  according  to  varying  circum- 
stances, aroused  Him  to  this  or  that  undertaking.     Thus  the  Spirit 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  185.  2  ibid.,  xv,  420  sqq. 

3  Ibid.,  vii.  ■^Ibid.,  x,  300 sq.  (A.  D.  1521). 


376  THE    IHEOLOGV    OF    LUTHER. 

had  been  in  Him  also  from  the  time  of  His  conception,  but  had, 
just  as  His  body  grew,  sunken  ever  deeper  into  His  being  and 
moved  Him  more  and  more.  The  declaration  of  Phil.  ii.  7  is 
here  cited  in  illustration.  Just  as  all  men  naturally  increase  in 
body  and  spirit,  so,  it  is  said,  did  Christ  also,  having  become 
man,  deport  Himself.  According  to  these  passages,  the  divine 
nature  was  also  present  in  its  entirety  in  the  person  of  Christ 
from  the  time  of  His  conception.  But  the  humanity  of  Christ  is 
not,  therefore,  to  be  thought  of  as  already  thoroughly  permeated 
by  the  divinity,  this  permeation  being  accomplished  only  grad- 
ually in  the  "  sinking- in  of  the  Spirit  "  ;  and  even  the  adult  Christ 
is  not  always  and  absolutely,  as  to  His  humanity,  impelled  by  the 
divinity  that  yet  dwells  within  Him.  How  it  is  possible  to 
actually  conceive  of  this  presence  of  the  full  divinity,  prominent 
among  whose  attributes  is  that  of  omniscience,  in  connection 
with  the  development  and  presence  of  the  humanity,  and  of  the 
human  soul,  which  is  not  omniscient,  is  a  problem  which  Luther 
makes  no  attempt  to  solve.  It  is,  finally,  of  the  humanity  of 
Jesus  distinctively  that  he  understands  the  scriptural  declarations, 
that  Christ  has  been  appointed  heir  of  all  things.  It  is  in  His 
human  nature,  too,  that  He  is  above  all  things,  and  all  things  are 
subject  to  Him.  This  is  inferred  upon  the  ground  that  the  divine 
nature  cannot  be  exalted  nor  appointed  heir.'  He  had  already, 
in  15 18,  interpreted  in  a  similar  way  of  the  humanity  of  Christ 
the  language  of  Ps.  ex.  i."  He  does  not,  however,  there  apply  the 
words  to  the  Saviour's  humanity  in  the  period  of  His  life  on  earth, 
but  has  in  view  simply  the  now  exalted  Lord. 

As  to  the  divine  natu?-e,  we  have  learned  that  it  cannot  be 
hujnbled,  and  particularly,  also,  that  it  cannot  suffer.  In  one 
passage,'  he  insists  upon  this  so  strenuously  that  he  does  not 
even  make  any  reference  to  the  communion  of  the  divine  and 
human  which  must  even  here  be  maintained,  as  involved  in  the 
unity  of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  necessary  in  order  to  give 
efificacy  to  His  sufferings.  "  Where,"  says  he,  *'  the  Scriptures 
declare  that  Christ  has  suffered,  etc.,  no  one  is  so  stupid  as  not 
to  understand  that  they  are  speaking  of  Him  as  a  man  ;  for  God 
cannot  suffer  and  die^  It  is  not  here  stated,  as  Luther  main- 
tained especially  against  Zwingli,  that  we  may  and  must  also  say 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  1S6.  2  i^id.,  xl,  7,  9.  » Ibid.,  xv,  422. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  377 

that  God  suffers.  This  we  find,  however,  distinctly  asserted 
before  any  thought  of  possible  utility  in  meeting  opposing  argu- 
ments can  have  been  entertained,'  and  the  assertion  is  here  as 
definite  as  in  later  years,  and  supported  by  the  same  illustrations  : 
"  Although  the  two  natures  are  diverse,  it  is  yet  One  person,  so 
that  everything  which  Christ  does  or  suffers  God  has  certainly 
done  or  suffered,  although  still  the  experience  in  question  has 
befallen  only  One  nature ; ,  as,  when  I  speak  of  a  man's  wounded 
leg,  I  say,  '  the  man  is  wounded,'  although  his  soul  is  not  wounded, 
nor  his  entire  body,''  etc. 

In  the  great  mutlitude  of  his  utterances  during  this  period  con- 
cerning Christ,  Luther  conducts  us  no  farther  in  the  discussion  of 
such  more  precise  questions  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  two 
natures.  The  occasion  for  more  specific  development  of  the 
doctrine  was  found  only  in  the  disputes  which  arose  among  the 
adherents  of  the  evangelical  party. 

There  were  two  leading  points  which  were  brought  into  promi- 
nence in  the  controversy,  although  both  were  directly  connected 
with  the  one  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  the  truly 
divine-human  person  of  the  Saviour. 

The  first  question  was,  Is  it  a  mere  form  of  speech  to  say,  that 
the  Son  of  God  suffered  ?  Was  it,  in  reality,  only  the  human 
nature  that  actually  suffered?  The  reply  which  Luther  gives  in 
his  Sermons  of  A.  D.  1523^  and,  more  particularly,  in  discussion 
with  Zwingli,^  merely  maintains  the  positions  which  he  had  before, 
as  we  have  seen,  asserted.  How  much  importance  he  attached 
to  the  question,  especially  on  account  of  the  inner  significance, 
or  efficacy,  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  is  most  impressively 
revealed  in  his  tract  against  Zwingli. 

The  second  point  of  discussion  was  the  exaltation  of  Christ 
according  to  His  humanity  and  the  consequent  omnipresence  of 
His  body.  Starting  with  the  position  of  the  glorified  Christ, 
Luther  now  claims  expressly  also  for  the  period  of  His  earthly 
life,  even  from  the  moment  of  His  conception,  that  the  Son  of 
man  is,  with  His  body,  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  hence  in 
all  places.*  This  claim — that  such  attributes  are  to  be  ascribed 
to   the   human  nature   and   the    body  of    Christ  from   the  first 

lErl.  Ed.,  vii,  186.  2  Supra,  p.  82sq. 

'  Supra,  p.  134  sq.  ♦  Supra,  pp.  78,  no  sq.,  1 17  sq.,  135  sq. 


378  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

moment  of  the  incarnation — undeniably  leads  us  beyond  the 
earlier  representations  of  Luther  and  aside  from  the  path  which 
he  '  previously  appeared  to  have  chosen.  Hovi^,  upon  this  theory, 
shall  it  be  possible  to  maintain  such  a  development  of  the  human 
nature,  by  the  only  gradual  "  sinking-in  "  of  the  divine,  as  was 
asserted  in  the  earlier  writings?  But  it  will  be  observed  that 
Luther,  even  at  the  earlier  period  referred  to,  did  not  further  }:)ur- 
sue  the  theory  then  presented  ;  and  that  he,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
already  at  that  time  asserted,  as  coincident  with  such  a  develop- 
ment of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  such  a  presence  of  God  in 
connection  with  the  humanity  in  the  person  of  Christ  as  itself 
already  manifested  a  lack  of  clearness  in  his  conception  of  the 
human  nature.  It  was  the  same  anxiety  to  maintain  that  com- 
plete and  essential  unity  of  the  divine  and  human  in  Christ  upon 
which  the  efificacy  of  the  atonement  depends  which,  having 
inspired  the  strong  statements  above  noted  concerning  the 
"  sufferings  of  God,"  now  led  him  to  the  new  utterances  by 
which  the  reality  of  the  human  nature  appears  to  us  to  be  im- 
periled. It  was  by  no  means  an  anxiety  to  maintain  merely  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  divine  as  present  in  Christ,  but  rather 
the  desire  to  gain  assent  to  the  claim,  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
present  in  the  very  man  Christ,  and  that  the  divine  is  present 
nowhere  witliout  the  man.  But  it  is,  at  least,  open  to  question 
whether,  under  the  method  pursued  by  Luther  in  his  attempt  to 
fortify  this  position,  the  man  can  jeally  be  still  regarded  as  true 
man. 

If  we  would  now  epitomize  the  total  result  of  the  discussions 
of  the  person  of  Christ  found  in  the  controversial  writings  of  the 
period,  we  must,  first  of  all,  recognize  that  the  Subject  here  dis- 
cussed is  C]irist  iu  the  luseparable  Union  of  the  Two  Natures. 
Whereas  the  Son  of  God  "  assumed  "  complete  human  nature, 
and  is,  therefore.  Himself  the  active  Subject  in  the  actual  process 
of  incarnation,'  after  the  act  of  incarnation  the  Person  is  not 
God  alone,  but  always  "  God  and  man,"  the  "  inseparable  Person 
formed  of  God  and  man,"  *  called  also  itself,  on  account  of  the 
God  incarnate  in  it,  an  "  eternal  "  Person.* 

*  Vid.  Sermons  in  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  185,  and   x,  300  sq. 

^  As  to  the  relation  to  the  entire  Trinity,  vid.  supra,  p.  317. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  364.     Cf.  later,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  318  ;  xlvi,  366. 
*Ibid.,  XXX,  364. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  379 

From  this  union  it  follows  that  we  may  truthfully  say  :  the  Son 
of  God  suffers.  We  may  "  ascribe  to  the  entire  person  that  which 
befalls  one  part  of  the  person,  inasmuch  as  both  parts  are  One 
person."  '  And  to  the  person  (to  whichever  side  any  property  or 
experience  in  question  may  naturally  in  the  first  instance  belong), 
we  may  indifferently  apply  the  terms  :  Son  of  God  or  Son  of  man, 
God  or  man.  Thus,  says  Luther,  do  all  the  ancient  teachers  and 
modern  theologians  teach,  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures.  It 
may  assist  us  in  the  more  accurate  analysis  of  the  questions  which 
arise  concerning  the  teaching  of  Luther  upon  this  subject,  if  we 
bear  in  mind  the  definitions  of  the  later  Lutheran  dogmaticians. 
We  find  here  in  Luther  what  the  latter  designate  as  the  ge/ii^s 
idiomaticum  and  the  genus  apotelesmaticiim  of  the  comniitnicatio 
idiomatiim.  What  belongs  to  the  one  nature  is  attributed  to  the 
entire  person,  which  is  God  and  man,  whether  it  be  called  God 
or  be  called  man ;  and  the  person  is  always  present,  with  both  its 
natures,  in  everything  which  it  undertakes. 

Luther  had  not  as  yet,  as  we  have  seen,  expressly  asserted  the 
omnipresence  of  the  body.''  It  was,  however,  for  him,  directly 
involved  already  in  the  position  that  God  and  man  are  insepar- 
ably in  Christ — that  God  is  man.  The  question  concerning  the 
omnipresence  of  the  body  of  Christ,  he  afterwards  declared,  has 
to  do  not  with  the  zuorks  of  the  two  natures,  but  with  their 
essential  character  (nature)  ;  ^  where  God  is,  there  must  also  be 
the  human  nature  of  Christ.*  If  we  now  conceive  of  this  omni- 
presence of  the  body  of  Christ,  in  its  co-existence  with  God,  as 
an  "  attribute,"  the  human  nature  in  Christ  itself  appears  to  be 
thereby  enriched  with  an  essentially  divine  attribute.  It  is  here  not 
meant  to  declare  only '"  that  the  Son  of  man  is  omnipresent,  since 
His  humanity,  indeed,  is  not  omnipresent;  yet  the  person  who  is 
human  is  omnipresent  in  a  way  analogous  to  that  in  which  we  are 
to  understand  the  assertion  that  the  Son  of  God  suffers.  We  have 
here  really  what  the  dogmaticians  call  the  genus  vtajestaticum — 
a  communication  in  which  the  human  nature,  in  its  imion  with 
the  divine,  secures  for  itself  a  participation  in  the  loftiest  preroga- 
tives of  the  divine  glory — a  communication  in  which  the  relation 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  204.     Cf.  supra,  p.  134  sq. 

'^  Supra,  p.  135  sq.  '  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  207. 

*  Supra,  p.  139  sq.  *  Supra,  p.  137. 


3 So  IHE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

is  not,  as  in  the  other  two  ge/iera,  a  reciprocal  one,  since  it  can- 
not be  said,  reversing  the  terms,  that  the  divine  nature  is 
degraded.  Yet  Luther  does  not,  when  speaking  of  this  "  omni- 
presence," proceed  to  treat  of  the  communication  of  other  divine 
attributes,  as  he  does  not  even  here  call  into  requisition  the  con- 
ception formally  embodied  in  the  term,  "  attribute."  The  infer- 
ence is  at  once  suggested  to  our  minds,  that,  as  the  presence  of 
God  is  one  all-efficacious,  so,  likewise,  must  the  body  of  Christ  be 
present  everywhere  as  all-efficacious ;  and  Luther  goes  at  least  so 
far  as  to  say  :  Christ  (and  that  not  only  as  the  ascended  Saviour) 
"also  as  a  man  "  has  all  things  under  Him,  and  reigns  over  them.' 
Yet  he  carries  the  deduction  here  no  farther.  He  was  content  to 
maintain  that  which  appeared  to  be  immediately  involved  in  the 
existence  of  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  union  with  His  divinity, 
and  which  was  denied  by  his  sacramentarian  opponents.  It  is 
only  in  another  connection,  /.  e.,  in  the  discussion  of  a  special 
point  having  direct  bearing  upon  the  efficacious  work  of  Christ 
in  the  securing  of  salvation,  which  arose  in  the  treatment  of  the 
question  of  the  benefit  of  the  flesh  of  Christ,  that  we  find  the 
description  of  the  human  nature  itself  as  being  interpenetrated 
and  adorned  by  an  impartation  of  the  divine.  The  flesh  itself,  it 
is  then  said,  is  full  of  divinity,  of  eternal  merc)%  life,  etc."  In 
support  of  such  claims,  Luther  appeals  to  the  union  of  the  Son  of 
God  with  humanity,  and,  with  special  emphasis,  to  the  (agency 
of  the)  Holy  Ghost,  of  whom  this  flesh  was  born,  and  who  dwells 
in  it  and  works  through  it.'* 

Luther  does  not  explain  in  how  far  it  may  be  proper,  under 
such  a  conception  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  to  speak  of  it  as  a 
true  human  nature.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  he  calls  attention 
to  an  "  existence  in  heaven  "  and,  at  the  same  time,  upon  earth, 
as  attributable  also,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  to  other  m^, 
/.  e.,  true  Christians,  but  not,  indeed,  as  involving  for  them  an 
omnipresence.*  It  should  be  noted,  also,  that  he  disclaims  any 
intention  of  making  the  body  of  Christ  a  "  second  infinite  " 
{altcnim  infinitinn')^  but  without  offering  any  solution  of  the 
questions  which  here  naturally  arise. 

lErl.  Ed.,  XXX,  65.  *Supra,  p.  125. 

^  Ell.  Ed.,  XXX,  99  sq.,  131. 

*  Supra,  p.  140  sq.  ^Ibid. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  38 1 

The  most  complete  and  profound  union  and  communion  of 
the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  Christ  is  the  point  which  Luther 
still  endeavors,  with  all  possible  energy,  to  maintain  in  his  exposi- 
tions of  this  doctrine  after  the  conflict  with  Zwingli. 

The  formula  for  the  person  of  the  Saviour  is  briefly  :  "  Deus  et 
homo  ujius  est  Christus."  Luther  did  not  approve  the  proposed 
substitution  (to  harmonize  with  the  logical  demand  for  identical 
predication  ')  of,  "The  Son  of  Clod  bearing  {siis/eiiiaiis)  human 
nature  is  God,"  for  the  simple,  "  The  man  is  God."  The  expres- 
sion, "  susfentare,''  seems  even  monstrous  to  him  ;  yet  he  is  willing 
to  allow  it,  if  it  be  correctly  understood.'- 

He  is  fond  of  employing — following,  as  he  says,  the  Fathers 
and  the  Scholastics''' — the  expression,  "  commiinicatio  idioviatiim,^'' 
to  denote  the  relation  of  the  two  natures  to  one  another.  He 
defines  "  idiom  a''  as:  "what  belongs  to  one  nature,  or  is  an 
attribute  of  it — as  dying,  suffering,  eating,  drinking,  or  being  born 
—  is  an  idioma  of  humanity;  and  an  idioina  of  divinity,  that  it  is 
immortal,  omnipotent,  or  infinite,  or  that  it  is  not  born,  does  not 
eat,  sleep,"  etc.* 

He  now  displays,  however,  much  more  earnestness  when  treat- 
ing of  this  communication  of  attributes  than  was  the  case  in  his 
earlier  employment  of  the  term,  insisting  upon  its  completeness, 
its  reality,  and,  with  special  emphasis,  upon  its  reciprocity.^ 

The  attributes  of  both  natures  are,  as  he  says,  by  virtue  of  the 
union  of  the  natures  in  Christ,  given  and  ascribed  to  the  entire 
person  of  Christ  "  in  concreto,''  in  consequence  of  which  this 
person  is  to  be  described  as  God  and  as  man.  Luther  here  then 
reiterates  at  greater  length  his  previous  declarations  upon  this 
point.  God  suffers,  he  declares,  and  dies ;  Mary  is  the  mother 
of  God.  Conversely,  that  which  belongs  properly  to  the  Son  of 
God  is,  on  account  of  the  person,  ascribed  to  the  Son  of  the 
Virgin,  and  we  rightly  say  :  "This  man  created  the  stars."  For 
this,  he  is  not  willing  to  substitute  :  "  This  Son  of  God,  bearing 

^  Vid.  supra,  p.  145.  ''■  Briefe,  vi,  285.     Jena,  i,  569  b. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  365.     Comm.  ad.  Gal.,  i,  382. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  309. 

•''Compare,  for  the  followina:,  in  addition  to  passages  specially  cited,  Erl. 
Ed.,  xlvi,  330  sqq.,  365  sqq. ;  xlvii,  I  sq.,  175  sqq  ;  xlix,  128,  135  sqq. ;  xxxvii, 
89  ;  XXV,  309  .sqq.     Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  467  sqq.     Jena,  1,  568  b. 


382  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

{sustentans)  human  nature,  is  the  Creator  of  the  world."  '  In 
meeting  the  misunderstanding  of  this  language  which  would  infer 
that  the  human  nature  had  created,  he  himself  declares  :  "  That 
person  existing  as  man,  or  having  an  assumed  human  nature, 
created  the  heavens."  '^  Nor  does  he  only  declare,  that  the  attri- 
butes of  both  natures  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  person,  but  he 
holds,  also,  that  the  attribute  of  one  nature  is  ascribed  to  the 
other  natuye,  that  being  attributed  to  the  divine  nature  which 
belongs  naturally  to  the  human.  He  then,  indeed,  at  once  again 
substitutes  the  name  of  the  person  for  "  the  divine  nature,"  or, 
instead  of  the  declaration  that  we  are  to  ascribe  attributes  of  the 
human  nature,  such  as  dying,  to  the  divine  nature,  the  simple 
statement :  "  The  Son  of  God  has  died."  The  Church,  he 
declares,  believes  that  "  not  only  the  human,  but  also  the  divine 
nature,  or  the  true  God  suffered  for  us."  ^  And,  in  meeting  the 
misunderstanding  of  this  which  would  infer  a  "  mortal  divinity," 
he  says  more  precisely :  "  The  person  existing  as  God,  or  having 
a  divine  nature,  is  mortal."  *  But,  cautioning  only  against  such 
misunderstandings,  he  designedly  employs  the  above  expression 
publicly  and  without  hesitation.  In  one  passage,^  he  proceeds 
to  speak  of  an  impartation  of  all  human  attributes  to  the  other 
nature.  Melanchthon  had  reported  to  him  a  rumor  that  a  certain 
pastor,  Gilbert,  "  insolently  and  boldly  maintains  that  the  divinity 
suffered,"  and  that  a  strife  had  arisen  in  the  congregation  of  the 
latter  as  to  whether  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  had  suffered, 
whereupon  he  (Gilbert)  had  announced  as  his  view  the  proposi- 
tion :  "That  the  whole  Christ  (^Christum  infei^n/iii),  consisting  of 
two  natures,  suffered."  To  this  Luther  declared  that  he  would 
object  only  if  it  were  thereby  meant  "  that  the  divinity  was 
separate,  and  suffered  separately  because  it  was  also  in  the 
humanity."  He  himself  proposes,  in  order  to  avoid  all  misunder- 
standing, to  express  the  doctrine  as  folloM^s  :  "  That  the  person, 
consisting  of  a  divine  and  a  human  nature,  truly  suffered."  * 
We  observe  what  great  and  very  peculiar  importance  Luther 
attached  to  the  communication  from   the  human  to  the  divine 

iBriefe,  vi,  285.  2  Ibid.,  v,  483. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  365,  330;  xlix,  137.  Briefe,  Vi,  292. 

*  Briefe,  v,  483.  s  Jbi^^  y^  292. 
^  Ibid.,  vi,  499  ;  v,  658  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  383 

side ;  and  the  most  emphatic  assertions  of  this,  moreover,  were 
made  in  the  closing  years  of  his  life.  As  to  the  reality  of  the 
impartation,  Luther  sometimes  speaks  as  though  we,  in  our  forms 
of  Christian  speech,  should  "  impute,  ascribe,  attribute  "  these 
qualities,  as  though  the  "  names  "  were  combined  in  the  one 
person ;  sometimes  he  asserts  also  that,  with  the  two  natures, 
their  consequences  and  attributes  themselves  were  combined — 
that,  as  God  and  man  are  combined  and  mingled  in  one  j^erson, 
so  also  are  the  attributes  combined  and  mingled.'  It  is  evidently 
meant,  that  it  is  only  in  view  of  the  actual  union  of  the  attributes 
that  the  Scriptures  authorize  us  thus  to  speak.  With  special 
reference  to  the  impartation  from  the  human  to  the  divine,  he 
employs  again  illustrations  similar  to  those  which  he  had  used  in 
the  controversy  with  Zwingli,'  as  of  the  wounding  of  the  entire 
person  by  the  wounding  of  any  member  of  his  body,  etc.  He 
now  says  expressly,  that  the  whole  man  is  smitten  in  soul  and 
body  when  his  leg  is  smitten.^  As  in  this  case  the  whole  man  is, 
even  with  his  soul,  actually  involved,  so,  evidently,  would  Luther 
conceive  also,  in  the  most  real  way  possible,  of  the  entire  Christ, 
together  with  His  divine  nature,  as  concerned  in  the  experiences 
of  the  human  nature  of  the  Saviour. 

If  we  examine  still  more  critically,  we  shall,  indeed,  observe 
that  the  impartation  is  not  even  now  represented  as  occurring 
equally  in  the  tiuo  directions.  The  human  is  still  by  no  means 
transferred  to  the  divine  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Luther  here 
again  represents  the  divine  as  being  transferred  to  the  human. 
As  to  the  transfer  of  the  divine  to  the  hruTian,  Luther  constantly 
applies  directly  to  the  human  nature  the  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture according  to  which  Christ  has  received  power  over  all  things, 
inasmuch  as  Christ,  according  to  His  divine  nature,  has  not 
received,  but  eternally  possessed,  such  power.  At  the  same  time, 
he  places  the  fact,  that  the  man,  the  Son  of  Mary,  has  divine 
power,  in  the  same  category  as  the  description  of  Him  as  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  although  we  cannot  think  of  such  a  partici- 
pation of  the  human  nature  in  the  work  of  creation  as  was  that  of 
the  divine  nature  in  the  sxifferings  of  Christ.  But  that  which  he 
describes  as  received  from  the  human  nature  must  have  been  a 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  310.  ^  Supra,  p.  134. 

^Erl.Ed.,  xlvi,  331. 


384  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

peculiar  property  of  the  human  nature  itself ; '  and  hence,  when 
he  speaks  of  the  person,  "  Christ,"  or  of  the  "  Son  of  God,"  as 
being  "  set  "  over  all  things,  he  can  do  so  only  by  using  the 
language  in  a  co7nmunicative  sense,  declaring  of  God  and  the 
divine  nature  that  which  is  strictly  true  only  of  the  human 
nature.'^  As  to  the  transfer,  conversely,  of  the  human  to  the 
divine,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Luther  does  not  assign  human 
suffering  to  the  divine  nature  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he 
ascribes  the  possession  of  power  to  the  human  nature.  On  the 
contrary,  notwithstanding  the  importance  which  he  attaches  to 
the  participation  of  the  divine  nature  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
we  nowhere  find  the  idea  of  a  real  participation  insisted  upon, 
nor  even  expressed  in  any  way  more  definitely  than  in  the  general 
form  already  cited.  We  find,  in  fact,  nothing  more  than  the 
general  representation,  that  the  divine  nature  is  present  in  the 
sufferings  of  the  human — as  a  weighty  -element,  by  virtue  of- 
which  the  latter  receive  their  eternal  validity  in  the  sight  of  God.^ 
At  all  events,  there  is  no  room  for  the  suspicion  that  the  divine 
nature  has,  according  to  Luther,  in  consequence  of  the  incarna- 
tion, in  any  way  laid  aside  anything  of  its  own  distinctive  char- 
acter. He  now  employs,  indeed,  with  reference  to  Phil.  ii.  6  sq., 
the  expression  :  "  That  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven,  emptied 
Himself  of  His  divinity,  and  became  a  man  for  our  sakes  "  ;*  and 
in  the  Tischredeti  he  says,  referring  to  the  same  passage,  "  Christ 
is  God,  but  He  determines  not  to  be  so,  but  to  be  our  ser\^ant."  ^ 
But,  in  view  of  all  his  other  definite  doctrinal  statements  upon 
this  point,  he  can  'here  have  meant  only  what  he  had  before 
described  as  an  emptying  Himself  of  the  divine  form.  He  had, 
for  example,  said "  that  Christ  emptied  Himself,  according  to 
Phil,  ii.,  of  His  divine  glory,  and  humbled  Himself  to  a  position 
beneath  that  of  all  men  ;  that  He,  in  reference  to  this,  in  John 
xiv.  28,  calls  Himself  less  than  the  Father;  that  the  "going  to 
the  Father  "  spoken  of  in  John  xiv.  indicates  the  kingdom  to 
which  He  goes  from  His  earthly  house  of  servitude,  in  order  to 

'Cf.,  upon  this  point  especially,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvii,  33. 

'Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  469  sq.  =* Supra,  p.  366.  ♦Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  4. 

^Tischr.,  i,  376.  Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  96.  Those  ancient  editions  of  the  Tisch- 
reden,  in  which  the  words  "  not,  but"  are  wanting,  have  doubtless  omitted 
them  because  they  were  thought  to  sound  too  harshly. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  247. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  385 

publiclv  receive  the  divine  power  and  glory  which  He  has  had 
with  the  Father  from  eternity.  In  a  similar  way,  Luther  applies 
the  emptying  Himself  of  the  divine  form  to  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  declaring  that  He  did  not  use  His  divine  power  nor  mani- 
fest {erai/geji)  His  almighty  strength,  but  "  drew  it  in."  ' 

Fixing  our  attention  again  particularly  upon  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  we  shall  find  Luther  constantly  speaking  of  the  transfer 
to  it  of  divine  power,  and  that  from  the  very  moment  "  when 
God  and  man  were  united  in  one  person."  ^  Ordinarily,  indeed, 
as  we  should  not  fail  to  note,  he  now,  as  before  the  sacramentarian 
controversy,  applies  the  scriptural  declarations  concerning  the 
exaltation  of  Christ  simply  to  the  Saviour  as  already  ascended  to 
heaven,  in  harmony  with  Ps.  viii.  4-8  (compare  also  Heb.  ii.  7, 
8).''  He  even  says  directly:  *  ''  He  began  to  sit  there  (at  the 
right  hand  of  God)  after  the  ascension ;  His  human  nature  had 
before  not  been  seated  there."  But  he  elsewhere  ^  says  more 
definitely  :  Christ  is  here  made  Lord  according  to  His  human  na- 
ture through  revelation  and  glorification  after  His  ascension ;  He 
was  glorified  (clearly  and  distinctly  revealed  for  us)  through  the 
resurrection  as  Lord,  that  He  might  be  also  for  us  Lord  over  all 
things  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  According  to  this,  the  exaltation 
of  Christ  in  His  ascension  appears  (in  harmony  with  the  repre- 
sentation in  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvii,  33),  after  all,  to  have  been  only  a 
revelation  of  that  which  had  been  previously  transferred  to  the 
human  nature. 

We  no  longer  find  expressions  concerning  the  development  of 
Jesus  in  His  childhood  in  which  the  strictly  human  features  are 
so  distinctly  recognized  as  in  the  passages  already  cited.®  Luther 
now  merely  says  that  he  "  deported  Himself  as  any  other  child  " 
(following  Phil.  ii. :  "being  found  in  fashion,"  etc.),  and  that 
the  Scriptures  wish  thus  to  depict  Him  as  a  true,  natural  man ; ' 
that  He  "  conducted  and  deported  {gestcllet  und gebaret)  Him- 
self like  any  other  lad  "  ;  *■  that  in  the  temple  (Lk.  ii.  46)  He 
doubtless  spoke  with  peculiar  humility,  and  "  conducted  Himself 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  48.  ^  Ibid.,  xxvii,  33. 

'Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  469,  472.     Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  329  sq.  ;  xxxix,  55  ;  xl,  49  sq. 
*  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  177.  *  Ibid.,  xxx,  19,  55  ;  cf.  also,  xl,  49  sq. 

^  Ibid.,  X,  300  sq.  ;  supra,  p.  375  sq. 
^  Ibid.,  vi,  129.  8  Ibid.,  xlv,  384. 

25 


386  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

as  though  He  had  heard  (what  He  knew)  from  His  mother  or 
other  pious  persons."  '  It  is  again  said,  accordnig  to  Lk.  ii, 
52,  that  He  increased  in  wisdom;  but  this  is  no  longer  so 
explained  as  at  an  earlier  period."  How  far,  it  may  then  be 
naturally  asked,  may  we  still  understand  the  deportment  ( Ge- 
biirden)  which  Christ  assumed  as  expressing  actual  and  strictly 
human  conditions  of  soul  and  spirit?  We  have  seen  that  Luther 
previously  applied  the  statements  concerning  the  gradually  in- 
creasing knowled'ge  of  Christ,  and  His  own  statement  recorded  in 
Mk.  xiii.  32,  to  His  human  nature,  and  understood  them  in  their 
natural  sense,  attributing,  in  so  far,  a  degree  of  ignorance  to  Christ. 
At  a  later  date,  however,  if  the  Tischreden  is  to  be  trusted,  he 
found  refuge  from  the  difficulty  in  an  explanation  similar  to  that 
which  he  had  previously  rejected,  /.  e.,  that  Christ  was,  in  the 
passage  cited,  speaking  only  of  His  office,  not  of  His  person.'^ 

Yet,  however  much  we  may  find  in  all  this  which  to  us  may 
appear  inconsistent  with  the  preservation  of  the  true  human 
nature  of  Christ,  Luther  himself  recognizes  no  such  inconsistency, 
but,  none  the  less,  maintains  most  strenuously  the  position,  that 
Christ  is  true  man  no  less  than  true  God.  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
also  that,  in  the  period  following  the  Zwinglian  controversy,  he  at 
least  refrained  from  any  attempt  to  expand  the  thought  of  the 
further  endowment  of  the  human  nature  with  the  attributes  of 
the  divine ;  and,  still  further,  that  we  no  longer  find  his  earlier 
emphatic  and  express  assertions  of  the  omnipresence  of  the  body, 
involved  though  this  still  was  in  his  general  declarations  concern- 
ing the  human  nature,  made  the  subject  of  express  and  specific 
discussion  in  any  of  his  writings.  We  may  again  recall  also,  in 
this  connection,  the  way  in  which  he  commonly  speaks  of  the 
exaltation  of  Christ,  although,  as  previously  remarked,  we  are  not 
at  liberty  to  construe  this  as  indicating  any  change  in  his  dogmatic 
views  themselves.  In  commenting  upon  John  iii.  13,  he  declares 
simply,  without  any  reser\'ation,  that  the  descending  of  Christ, 
while  He  still,  according  to  His  divine  nature,  remained  forever 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  "  occurred  only  according  to  His 
human  nature  "  * — without  at  all  asserting  that  His  body  had  also 
been  at  the  same  time  in  heaven.^     The  greatest  weight  must, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  ii,  7.  '■'  Ibid.,  x,  300.  ^Tischr.,  i,  349. 

♦  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  328,  330.  ^  Cf.  supra,  p.  1 18. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  387 

finally,  here  be  given  to  the  utterances  of  Luther  concerning  the 
sufferings  which  Christ  endured  according  to  His  human  nature. 
He  represents  that  the  divine  nature  remains  present  with  the 
human  in  the  sufferings  of  the  Saviour ;  that  it  is  through  the 
presence  of  the  divine  nature  that  the  latter  receive  their  proper 
value;  and  it  is  by  virtue  of  it  that  Chiist  triumphs  over  death 
and  hell.  But  the  divine  nature  here,  he  declares,  refrains  from 
manifestation,  withdraws  within  itself,  lies  concealed  and  quiet. 
Christ  is  forsaken  of  God  and  left  without  divine  assistance.  He 
hangs  upon  the  cross  as,  simply  and  purely,  a  man  in  great  weak- 
ness. In  a  similar  way,  it  was  as  simply  and  purely  a  man,  that 
He  once  endured  temptation  (Matt,  iv.)  at  the  hand  of  Satan.' 
In  such  connections,  Luther  habitually  lays  the  chief  stress  directly 
upon  the  spiritual  experiences  of  the  man,  Christ,  in  which  He 
endured  what  any  man  must  suffer  when  most  sorely  tempted 
and  forsaken  of  God. 

It  would  be  in  vain  to  search  in  the  writings  of  Luther  for  any 
harmonizing  suggestions  or  definitions  designed  to  make  more 
intelligible  to  us  the  true  persistence  of  the  two  natures,  espe- 
cially that  of  the  human  nature,  in  their  union  in  the  one  person- 
ality. He  simply  proclaims  that  which  appears  to  him  to  be  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  basis  of  our  salvation.  That  which 
is  thus  set  before  his  spiritual  vision,  he  endeavors  in  his  funda- 
mental principles  to  combine  in  one  view,  yet  avoiding  all 
attempt  to  himself  solve,  or  even  to  analyze  more  fully,  the  ques- 
tions which  are  naturally  thereby  suggested  to  our  minds.  The 
characteristic  peculiarity  of  his  Christology,  differentiating  it  from 
the  previous  doctrinal  development  in  this  direction,  lies  in  its 
profound  and  earnest  attempt  to  secure  full  recognition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  imion  of  the  truly  divine  and  truly  human  natures 
— and,  we  may  further  add,  especially  in  the  peculiar  stress  which 
it  lays  upon  the  human  element  in  this  union.  For,  however  the 
genuineness  of  the  human  nature  may  appear  to  be  jeopardized 
in  the  above-cited  passages,  it  would  be  a  most  egregious  blunder 
to  look  for  the  fundamental  characteristic  and  controlling  prin- 
ciple of  his  Christology  in  any  such  idea  as  that  he  endeavored  to 
give  but  a  subordinate  significance  to  the  humanity  of  Christ,  or 
make  it  but  a  vanishing  element  as  compared  with  the  divinity, 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  469.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  302,  397  sq. ;  xxxix,  45  sq.,  47  ;  ii,  136. 


388  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

and  thus  merely  followed  to  greater  lengths  a  tendency  already 
embodied  in  the  preceding  development  of  the  doctrine.  Upon 
the  contrary,  that  very  conception  of  the  spiritual  sufferings 
{Seelenkiden)  of  Christ,  by  which  His  true  humanity  is  still, 
despite  all  that  may  seem  to  discredit  it,  most  positively  afifirmed 
and  emphasized,  is  quite  specifically  Lutheran,  lying  at  the  very 
heart  of  Luther's  faith  and  theology.  Even  the  most  questionable 
of  his  utterances  as  to  the  omnipresence  of  the  body,  etc.,  are 
prompted  not  at  all  by  indifference  to  the  significance  of  the 
human  side,  but,  on  the  contrary,  as  we  long  since  had  occasion 
to  observe,  by  the  earnest  desire  so  to  present  the  humanity  itself 
in  closest  unity  with  the  divinity,  that  the  former  may  furnish  a 
firm  point  of  attachment  for  faith.  Thus  does  Luther  himself 
characterize  his  own  knowledge  of  Christ,  as  contrasted  with  the 
theology  of  his  predecessors  ;  "  This,  says  he,  is  what  the  most 
exalted  theologians  did  in  former  times — they  fled  (flew)  from 
the  humanity  of  Christ  to  his  divinity,  and  clung  alone  to  this. 
I  was  also  formerly  such  a  doctor,  and  excluded  the  humanity. 
But  we  must  ascend  to  the  divinity,  and  hold  fast  to  it,  in  such  a 
way  as  not  to  abandon  the  humanity  of  Christ.  Thou  shouldst 
know  nothing  of  any  God,  or  Son  of  God,  but  Him  who  is  declared 
to  have  been  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  to  have  become  man."  ' 

2.   The  Work  of  Christ. 

DELIVERANCE    FROM     SIN    AND     GUILT CONQUEST    OF    SIN — CHRIST'S 

PERFECT  HOLINESS SUBJECTION  TO  LAW HUMAN    GUILT  BORNE 

A  CURSE    IN    SIGHT  OF  MAN   AND    GOD UNDER  WRATH  OF  GOD  AND 

POWER   OF  DEVIL INNOCENCE RELATION    OF    DEVIL   AND    LAW  TO 

CHRIST'S  SUFFERINGS RESULTS  FOR  US —PECULIARITY  OF  LUTHER'S 

DOCTRINE VICARIOUS    SUFFERING "  DESCENSUS    AD    INFEROS  " 

ASCENSION — TEACHING    OF    CHRIST CHRIST    AS    PROPHET,    PRIEST, 

KING. 

Luther  briefly  designates  as  the  "Office  and  Work  of  Jesus  I 
Christ,"  "OUR  redemption"  {Eridsung).     This  is  2^  deliverance  X 
fro7n  sin,  death,  hell  and  all  misery — from  the  entire  state  into 
which  we  have  been  brought  by  the  sin  of  Adam.     And  Luther's  3 
foremost  thought,  when  speaking  of  "  deliverance  from  sin,"  is 

>  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  362. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  389 

always,  as  we  long  since  observed,  that  the  curse  of  sin,  the  guilt 
and  consciousness  of  guilt,  the  sense  of  the  divine  wrath,  are 
taken  from  us.  That  with  this  there  was  already  really  asso- 
ciated in  his  mind  a  conquest  of  the  power  of  sin  and  its  impulses, 
we  shall  very  clearly  recognize  in  the  course  of  our  investigations 
in  the  present  section,  and,  especially,  in  the  sections  following, 
in  which  the  doctrine  of  justification  will  claim  our  attention. 
None  the  less  marked,  however,  on  this  account  is  the  precedence 
given  to  the  first-named  element  when  the  state  of  sin  is  under 
consideration.  Thus  Luther  says,  when  speaking  of  the  "  bond- 1--- 
age  of  sin,"  that  it  makes  a  timid  conscience ;  but  it  becomes 
powerless  through  Christ  to  such  an  extent  that  it  can  no  longer 
bring  charges  against  us.  The  deliverance  wrought  by  Christ  is,  ^ 
according  to  Eph.  i.  7,  essentially  the  "  forgiveness  of  sins." 
The  most  terrible  thing  about  sin  is  that  it  involves  the  eternal 
wrath  of  God,  and,  in  addition,  the  whole  kingdom  of  Satan.' 

To  this  Work  of  Christ  belongs  His  entire  continuous  exertion  u 
of  energy  upon  our  souls  through  His  Spirit.  In  the  present 
section  we  shall  have  to  do  more  particularly  with  the  work  which 
He  accomplished  once  for  all  in  His  career  as  the  Incarnate  One 
from  His  birth  to  His  ascension,  especially  His  sufferings,  death 
and  resurrection.  The  continuous  activity  of  the  Saviour,  based 
upon  this,  will  claim  our  attention  in  the  following  chapter. 

Luther's   testimony  upon   this  subject  is  exceedingly  abundant   < 
and  vivid.     What  the  God-man  in  the  work  of  redemption  under-      ^ 
took,  endured  and  accomplished,  he  seeks  to  present  to  us  in 
every  light  as  impressively  as  possible,  and  he  endeavors  to  set  it 
before  us  in  the  most  attractive  and  picturesque  outlines.     Yet   ^ 
we  find  him  presenting,  now  one,  now  another,  feature  of  the 
subject,  just  as  the  immediate  occasion  may  suggest,  and,  particu- 
larly, as  his  mind  is  influenced  from  time  to  time  by  the  passages 
of  Scripture  which  he  may  be  seeking  to  elucidate.     Thus,  greater   ^ 
prominence  is  given  at  different  times  to  the  relation  of  the  work 
of  Christ  to  the  sinful  state  of  man  in  general,  to  the  wrath  of 
God  before  which  the  conscience  trembles,  to  the  devil,  or  to 
the  Law — and  to  the  latter,  either  as  visiting   its  curse  upon  us 
or  as  standng  over  us,  in  consequence  of  the  general  prevalence 
of  sin,  as  an  oppressor  and  taskmaster.     Similarly,  in  the  work  of  L  '^ 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  115;  xxi,  13,  99;  xli,  214;  xlix,   140;  x,  24;  xviii,   177, 
'79  5  ''^'j  S^O-     Conini.  ad.  Gal.,  i,  54. 


J^ 


390  THE    THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

Christ  itself,  the  chief  emphasis  is  laid  from  time  to  time  upon 
His  active  ministry,  upon  His  sufferings,  upon  His  death,  or  upon 
His  triumph  in  the  resurrection,  etc.     Nowhere  has  Luther,  in  \^ 
uniform  statement,  combined,  expanded,  or  harmonized  all  these 
various  elements.     This  may  be  partly  accounted  for  by  the  fact,  ^ 
that,  however  peculiar  to  himself,  in  contrast  with  the  traditional 
theology,  was  his  conception  of  the  work  of  Christ,  it  was  yet 
not  that  work  itself,  but  only  the  significance  to  be  attributed 
to  it  in  contrast  vi'ith  all  human  efforts,  which  he  found  it  neces- 
sary, in  the  conflict  with  his  enemies,  to  maintain  and  more  care- 
fully define.     He  himself,  moreover,  reminds  us  that  strong  meat  ^ 
cannot  be  furnished  to  all  readers,  but  that  some  can  endure 
only  milk ;  and  he  speaks  of  this  especially  with  reference  to  the 
mysterious  culmination  of  religious  truth  in  the  sufferings  of  the 
Saviour.'     Hence,  when  we  find  him  dwelling  less  fully  upon  this  ^' 
subject  than  is  his  wont,  we  are  by  no  means  at  liberty  to  con- 
clude that  he  has  come  to  attach  less  importance  to  it,  or  that  he 
has  formed  another  conception  of  its  significance.     In  his  pictur-  ^ 
esque  representations,  it  may  at  times  be  questioned  to  what 
extent  he  wishes  his  language  to  be  understood  literally  or  figura- 
tively.    It  will  aid  us  in  reaching  a  conclusion  in  such  cases  to  v 
note  in  advance  what  he  himself  declared  with  primary  reference 
to  the  descent  of  Christ  to  hell,  but  yet,  at  the  same  time,  in 
general  terms  :   "  We  must  at  any  rate  conceive  of  {?//  things  which 
we  cannot  understand  and  know  in  pictures,  even  though  they  may 
not  actually  be  just  as  the  pictures  represent  them.    I  propose  to 
keep  close  to  the  ])ictures,  for  with  lofty  thoughts  and  keen  ques- 
tions the  devil  would  easily  draw  me  off  of  the  track.     The  picture 
really  helps  to  gain  the  proper  and  correct  understanding."  '^ 

It  will  now  be  our  task  to  set  in  a  clear  light,  as  far  as  possible, 
the  significance  of  the  separate  elements  of  the  work  of  Christ 
in  their  relation  to  one  another,  as  conceived  by  Luther,  acknowl- 
edging, as  we  proceed,  the  points  in  which  the  utterances  of  the 
Reformer  himself  fail  to  afford  us  such  further  mediating  sugges- 
tions or  definitions  as  may  seem  to  be  desirable.^ 

1  Op.  Ex  ,  xvi,  242,  248  sq.  '■'  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  286. 

^  Held,  in  his  "  De  opere  Jesu  Christi  salutari,"  A.  D.  i860,  has  presented 
the  doctrine  very  fully  and  vividly,  but  without  bringing  to  view  with  suffi- 
ciennt  accuracy  the  dogmatic  questions  which  must,  even  in  the  interest  of 
mere  historic  tuielily,  be  considered  in  connection  with  it. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  39 1 

The  fundamental  prerequisite  for  the  entire  activity  of  Christ 
in  the  interest  of  human  salvation — for  His  once-for-all  completed 
work,  and  His  continuous  bestowal  of  salvation  upon  men — was 
always,  for  Luther,  found  in  the  Person  of  the  Redeemer,  with  His 
Divine  and  Htnnan  Nature. 

The  character  of  holiness  belongs  to  Him  by  virtue  of  His  very  '^ 
nature  :   He  is  pure  already  in  His  conception  and  birth.     And    ^ 
as  His  purity  and  holiness,  in  general,  are  to  redound  to  our 
benefit,  in  order  that  we  also,  in  our  faith  in  Him  and  through 
union  with  Him,'  may  become  holy,  or  righteous,  before  God,  so 
also  is  this  purity  of  His  birth  to  prove  a  source  of  blessing  to  us.'' 
But,  in  order  that  salvation  may  actually  flow  out  from  Him  upon  ^^ 
us.  He,  the  Son  of  God,  holy  in  His  own  nature,  also,  for  our 
sakes  put  His  own  holiness,  as  a  man,  to  the  test  throughout  His 
entire  earthly  career  in  active  moral  living,  and  in  His  sufferings 
took  upon  Himself,  endured  and  overcame  that  which  rested  as  a 
heavy  burden  upon  us,  sinful  men.     We  must,  as  when  before 
treating  of  the  subject,^  fix  our  attention  at  once  upon  both  these 
features  of  His  work. 

Christ  brings  deliverance,  because  He,  holy  as  He  was  from  «x 
His  very  birth,   never  sinned,  but,  on  the  contrary,  in  perfect 
obedience,  fulfilled  the  Father's  will.     In  view  of  this.  His  obedi-\ 
enee,  His  piety,  His  holiness,  we  inay  be  certain  that  God  will  for 
His  sake  be  gracious  to  us.     Therein  Yit  fulfilled  the  Law,  or  the  l^ 
"  will  of  God  "  (Ps.  xl.  7,  8).     Through  His  cheerful  fulfilling  of  \^ 
this  divine  will,  we  are  sanctified  (Heb.  x.  lo),  and  through  His 
obedience,  righteous  (Rom.  v.  19).     He  has  satisfied  the  Law,  so  i^ 
that  we,  who  were  incapable  of  meeting  its  demands,  are  now 
no  longer  condemned  by  it.     He  fulfilled  the  Law,   moreover,  1^ 
completely,  because  all  His  deeds  were  done  in  that  love  to  God 
and    His   fellowmen   in  which  the  whole    Law  consists.     Here  l^ 
come  into  view,  also,  especially  His  sufferings  and  death,  and  His 
bearing  of  our  sins ;  for  these  were  prompted  by  love  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  Father,  and  by  love  for  His  fellowmen.     He  thus  ^ 
fulfilled  also  the  requirement  of  Matt.  vii.   12;  for  every  one 
would  gladly  have  another  do  for  him  as  Christ  did  for  others. 
Thus  has  He  entirely  fulfilled  the  Law  which  we  were  in  duty  u^ 

'Cf.  the  following  chapter  and  Vol.  I.,  p.  414;  Vol.  II.,  p.  366  sq. 
"Erl.  Ed.,  XX,  160  sqq.  ^  Vol.  I.,  p.  170. 


392  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

bound  to  fulfil.  If  we  be  now  asked  in  the  presence  of  God, 
whether  we  have  loved  God  and  perfectly  fulfilled  the  Law,  He 
approaches  and  says  :  "  O,  Father,  thou  knowest  1  have  done 
soj  let  this  be  set  to  their  credit  {ihnen  zu  Gate  komnieii), 
because  they  believe  on  me."  '  We  have  here  a  dogmatic  pre-  ^ 
sentation  of  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  in  our  stead,  in  which 
His  endurance  for  us  is  also  included  as  a  moral  act.  Precisely 
what  He  took  upon  Himself  in  this  endurance,  and  why  it  was 
necessary  for  Him  so  to  do,  are  matters  which  will  demand  our 
attention  in  another  connection. 

If  we  inquire  more  closely  into  the  nature  of  the  Law  which 
Christ  is  said  to  have  fulfilled,  we  are  at  once  led,  in  Luther,  from 
the  thought  of  a  doing  of  the  Law  by  Christ  to  that  of  a  bearing 
of  it  on  His  part — from  the  doing  of  that  which  we  ought  to 
have  done,  yet,  on  account  of  indwelling  sin,  could  not  have  done, 
to  a  bearing  of  that  which  was  laid  upon  us  in  our  character  as 
sinners.  It  is  only  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  can  rightly 
understand  the  often-quoted  saying  of  Luther,  that  Christ  in  His 
person  and  His  will  was  not  under  the  Lajv,  but  free  from  it  and 
Lord  over  allir  What  was,  then,  the  nature  of  the  Law  under  ^ 
which  Christ  placed  Himself?  To  it  belong  certainly  the  Mosaic  i- 
ordinances,  to  which  He  is  particularly  said  to  have  subjected 
Himself.  To  it  belong  also  such  commandments  as  that  requiring  ^ 
obedience  to  parents,  and,  in  general,  all  the  commandments 
which  are  not  purely  ceremonial — the  whole  Law,  including  that 
written  upon  the  hearts  of  all  men.  We  have  already  been  told  ^'' 
that  the  will  of  the  Father  is  the  same  thing  as  the  Law.''  But 
when  it  is  now  said  of  Christ,  that  He  is  free  from  the  Law,  we 
dare  not  understand  this  in  the  sense  in  which  Luther,  in  his 
well-known  utterance  of  A.  D.  1525,  declares  of  God,  as  such, 
that  we  dare  set  no  bounds  to  Him,  etc. ;  *  but  Luther  has  in 
view  a  freedom  from  the  Law  which  may  and  should  be  trans- 
ferred from  the  Son  of  God  to  us  men.     According  to  this,  the 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  183  (Vol.  I.,  p.  414);  iii,  311,  313  sq.  Jena,  i,  542 
b.  Briefe,  V,  525.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  67;  xv,  57;  ii,  261;  x,  25;  xiv,  10,  16, 
154. 

*Ibid.,  vii,  270  sq. 

'Ibid.,  vii,  270,  i,  307  sq.,  309;  xv,  261.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  244.  Erl.  Ed., 
xiv,  10. 

*  Ibid.,  xlviii,  53. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  393 

kind  of  Law  which  is  here  meant  may  be  yet  more  narrowly 
defined.     Believers,  delivered  by  Christ,  although  living  under  u^ 
the  Law,  are  yet  not  subject  to  it,     Christ,  by  the  very  act  of  ^ 
subjecting  Himself  to  the  Law,  has  made  them  free  from  it.     And  u 
by  this  is  meant,  not  only  that  they  are  free  from  the  curse  of  the 
Law,  so  that  it  can  no  more  bring  charges  against  them  and  con- 
demn them,  but  that  they  now,  being  redeemed  (delivered),  no 
longer  have   in   the   Law  a    taskmaster,  with   threatenings   and 
rewards.     They  now  have  themselves  a  free  and  cheerful  will,  and  u- 
do  all  things  in  a  natural  way,  as  did  Adam  and  Eve  before  the 
Fall ;  and  hence  the  Law  has  no  further  demands  to  make  upon 
them.     If  they  still  have  evil  inclinations,  yet  the   Law  can  no  V 
more  threaten  them,  inasmuch  as  they  look  to  Christ  in  faith, 
and  His  fulfilment  of  the  Law  is  theirs.     Just  as  little  do  they  ^ 
need  to  earn  anything  by  the  works  of  the  Law,  since  they  already 
certainly  possess  all  blessedness  in  Christ.     Now  it  is  just  the  i^ 
perfect  pattern  and  original  source  of  this  liberty  which,  upon 
Luther's  theory,  is  to  be  found  in  Christ.     He  has  no  Law  and  is  L^ 
above  all  Law,  because  He  has  of  His  own  accord  done  all  that 
the  entire  Law  requires,  so  that  it  can  neither  command  nor 
forbid  Him  to  do  anything — and  because  He  is  so  full  of  all  that 
is  good  that  He  can  neither  desire  nor  do  anything  but  that 
which  is  good.     He  has  in  His  person  more  righteousness,  piety,  U 
holy  desire  and  love  than  the  Law  could  ever  demand.     Hence,  i^ 
the   Law  has  no  authority  over  Him.     It  cannot  say  to  Him  :  ^ 
"  Do  this,  avoid  that"  ;  but  He  might,  on  the  contrary,  say  to  the 
Law :  "I  do,  and  have  done,  what  should  be  done ;  and  I  have 
no  need  whatever  of  your  requirements  to  that  end."     Thus  He  V' 
stands  far  above  the  Law,  and  is  Lord  of  the  Law.     Nor  was  it 
necessary  for  Him,  before  attaining  this  liberty,  to  merit  anything 
by  means  of  His  work  upon  our  behalf  or  by  His  obedience  to 
the  Father.     He  might  have  remained  in  heaven  and  been  equal  ^ 
to  God,  and,  from  the  very  moment  of  His  conception,  all  things 
belonged  to  Him  ;  but  He  accomplished  His  great  work  for  our 
benefit  in  free  love  and  obedience.'     According  to  these  princi- 
ples, when  Luther  speaks  of  the  subjection  of  Christ  to  the  Law, 
frojti  whicJi  He  was  free,  he  does  not  understand  by  the  latter 

'  Erl.   Ed.,  XV,   294;  vii,  266  sqq.,  296;  li,   2S8,   297;   xiv,    155;   xv,  259 
sqq.     Jena,  i,  237  (Loscher  ii,  8S6).     Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  10. 


394  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

simply  the  "  will  of  God,"  but   the   divine   will  as  presented   in 
exernal  commandments  and  prohibitions,  with  threatenings  and 
promises  of  reward.     He  speaks,  at  the  same  time,  of  a  doing  of  i"' 
the  divine  loving  will,  as  Jesus  freely  cherished  it  in  His  own 
heart;  but  he  does  not  say  that  Jesus  had  also  liberty  from,  and 
dominion  over,  the  latter.     He  means,  in  the  former  case,  the 
Law  as  it  stands  before  us  since  we  have  become  sinners,  and  as 
it  is  specially  portrayed  in  the  Mosaic  requirements.     "  The  Law,"  ^ 
says  he,  "  has  to  do  only  with  sinners.     But  Christ  is  no  sinner;    v 
He  is  verily  the  Lord  of  the  Law,  because  He  is  without  any 
sin."  '     But  Christ  retained  His  liberty,  also,  even  when  under  the  V 
Law.     In  outward  works.  He  was,  indeed,  like  all  those  who  do  1/ 
the  latter  unwillingly,  ensnared  as  they  are  in  the  two  fetters  of 
the  prison-house  of  the  Law,  /.  e.,  the  fear,  or  threatenings,  of  the 
Law,  and  the  reward,  or  hope  of  reward.     But  in  His  will  He  ^ 
was  free;    He  kept  the  Law  voluntarily,  neither  seeking  nor  for 
Himself  fearing  anything  from  it.     And  it  is  just  to  such  a  liberty  v, 
that  He  now  desires  to  lead  us  out  from  the  prison  of  the  Law, 
into  which  He  has  come  to  find  us.- 

If  we  have  correctly  apprehended  the  conception  of  Luther,  a  W 
discrimination  must  be  made,  in  the  positive  activity  of  Christ  of 
which  we  have  been  speaking,  between  two  things  which  he  him- 
self, indeed,  does  not  clearly  differentiate,  and  which  coincide  in 
the  actual  deeds  of  the  Saviour,  /.  e.,  the  lioUness  of  His  entire 
character  and  life,  and  His  subjection  to  the  requirements  of  the 
Law,  in  which  this  holy  obedience  to  the  Father  was  consum- 
mated.    The   second   item,   however,    has    already    to    do    with  W' 
something  which,  as  \ht  punitive  consequence  of  sin,  lay  upon  us, 
and  was  now  taken  upon  Himself  by  the  Redeemer.     The  active  w 
obedience  thus  here  already  assumes  the  form  of  an  enduring, 
or  suffering.     Thus,  too,  Luther  is  accustomed  to  combine  directly  ^ 
with  the  subjection  of  Christ  to  the  Law  also  His  further  subjec- 
tion to  its  curse,  or  to  the  penalty  which  it  threatens  to  inflict 
upon  those  who  violate  it.     Christ  has  taken  both  upon  Himself  ^ 
for  us — has  done  the  works  of  the  Law,  which  He  was  not  bound 
to  do,  and  has  willingly  endured   the  punishment  and  penalty  of 
the  Law.'^     In  a  similar  way,  Luther  commonly  embraces  both  v 
ideas  in  his  conception  of  our  redemption,  /.  e.,  deliverance  from 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  i,  308.  ^  Ibid.,  vii,  270.  ^Hjij.,  271. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  395 

the  Law  as  a  taskmaster,  and  from  its  curse,  which  was  ah-eady 
resting  upon  us.      In  this  view,  Christ  stands  before  us  as  Lord  ^^ 
of  the  Law,  because,  while  He  Himself  offers  to  become  a  curse 
for  us,  the  Law  has  yet  no  authority  to  condemn  Him.' 

But  this  opens  up  for  us  a  train  of  thought  which  must  now  be 
considered  in  its  wider  connections. 

It  is  not  really  the  active  work  of  Christ  in  itseK  which  has  U 
redemptive  power  for  us,  but  His  taking  upon  Himself  of  that 
which  7ve  had  as  sinners  to  bear.     It  is  this  specifically  which  ^ 
Luther  means  when  he  says  of  Christ,  that  He  took  upon  Him- 
self {assumpsit)  that  which  was  ours.     And  he  gives  the  place  of  '^ 
prominence  to  this  feature  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  precisely  the 
same  way  in  which  he,  when  speaking  of  the  redemption  achieved 
by  that  work,  lays  the  chief  stress  upon  our  deliverance  from 
that  which  we  had,  as  sinners,  to  bear. 

Christ,  says  Luther,  took  upon  Himself  that  which  was  ours,  our  i/- 
sin,  in  order  to  remove  it  from  us,  and  to  bestow  upon  us  His 
own  holiness  and  righteousness.     Yea,  in  order  to  become  the   \^ 
Saviour  of  all  men,  He  thus  took  upon  Himself  the  sins  of  all — 
mine,  and  thine,  and  those  of  the  whole  world.     This  cannot  be  ^ 
strongly  enough   expressed.     Christ  is  said   to  be   the  greatest    \-^ 
sinner,  murderer,  blasphemer,  etc.     He  is  even  to  be  called,  with  ^ 
emphasis,  "sin"  itself  (2  Cor.  v.  21) i'     He  has  sin,  is  a  sinner,  i^ 
is   made  to  be  sin  for  us — never  by  any  means  in  the  sense  of 
having  Himself  committed  sin,  but  because  He  has  taken  upon 
Himself  and  bears  all  sins,  is  a  sacrifice  for  them,  and,  in  bearing, 
renders  satisfaction  for  them.''     To  express  the  idea  of  Luther,  we  ^^ 
are  accustomed  to  say  that  Christ  has  borne  the  guilt  of  our  sins. 
Luther  has  no  liking  whatever  for  the  unbiblical  term,  "  reatusi"  *  i^ 
He    is   accustomed,    however,  to    mention,  in    immediate    con- 
nection with  sin,  that  which  it,  as  an  offence  ( Verschuldung) 
against  God,  brings  upon  us,  /.  e.,  the  wrath  of  God?     Christ,  1/ 
in  assuming  sin,  took  also  this  upon  Himself.     Yet  he  occasion- 
ally, in  scattered  passages,  employs  also  directly  such  expressions 
as:  that  Christ  has  been  made  the  '■^  reus''''  (one  accused)  of  all 
sins;  that  upon  Him,  the  innocent,  fell  "the  guilt,  or  penalty."® 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XV,  264;  vi,  155  sq.  ^Cf.  supra,  p.  353. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  177  sq.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  14,  19  sqq.,  31. 
*  Cf.  Jena,  ii,  427.  ^  Gomm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  54. 

8  Ibid.,  ii,  17,  19,  32.     Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  426. 


396  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

The    atoning  work  of   Christ  is  completed  in  His  sacrificial  u 
death.     But  it  begins  already  with  His  incarnation.     It  was  for  i 
this  purpose  that  He  derived  His  body  from  such  polluted  flesh  :  ' 
"  He  must,  in  His  flesh,  become  a  sinner,  just  as  loathsome  as  He  t/ 
can  possibly  become."  -     He  no  doubt  endured  from  His  very  1/ 
youth,  especially  in  the  night-time,  many  assaults  of  temptation 
from  the  devil — terrors  driving  almost  to  despair,  so  that  His  life 
was  on  the  brink  of  hell  (Ps.  Ixxxviii.  15,  3),'*  all  of  which  culmi- 
nated finally  in  Gethsemane  and  upon  Calvary.     He  appears  also,  w'' 
particularly  at  His  baptism,  as  the  greatest  sinner  of  the  whole 
world,  His  purpose  being  to  secure  forgiveness  for  the  sins  of  the 
world,  which  He  has  assumed.* 

Finally,  He  endured  to  the  utmost,  according  to  Luther,   in  ^ 
His  last  sufferings  and  death,  that  which  would  have  fallen  upon 
us  sinners.     Luther  depicts  most  impressively  the  external  suffer-  ^ 
ings  which  He  was  called  upon  to  endure  at  the  hands  of  men, 
as  they  treated  Him  as  the  worst  of  sinners.     But  it  was  not,  ^ 
in  his  view,  the  bodily  sufferings,  nor  the  sense  of  rejection  by 
all  men,  which  constituted  the  chief  agony  of  the  Saviour ;  but 
the  latter  consisted  in  the  feeling  of  that  which  sinners  themselves 
must  feel,  and  which  God  causes  them  to  feel,  when  under  con- 
viction   of  sin.     This  had   been  his   conception  from   the  very  v 
beginning.*     Thus  it  is  that  the  sins  of  men  are  laid  upon  Christ,  ^ 
as  taught  in  Isa.  liii.     It  is  His  person  that  speaks  in  the  laments 
of  Ps.  xl.  12  ;  xli.  4  ;  Ixix.  5  ;  Ixxxviii.  7,  16.® 

Over  the  sinner  hangs  the  Law.  with  its  sentence  of  condemna-V'^ 
Hon  and  its  curse,     Christ  takes  this  sentence  upon  Himself,  and  K 
endures  the  curse  and  its  visitation,  just  as  though  He  had  Him- 
self broken   the   Law.     He   has,   according  to  Gal.  iii.   10  and  ^ 
Deut.  xxi.  23,'  been  fully  made  a  curse  for  us.     He  exposed  ^ 
Himself  to  the  wrath  of  the  Law.®     Many  of  the  utterances  of 
Luther  upon  this  subject  leave  room  for  the  inquiry,  whether  he 
does  not,  after  all,  regard  Christ  as  resting  under  the  curse  of 

'  Supra,  p.  371.  2  Qp   Ex.,  ix,  173  sqq. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  48  sq.  ♦  Ibid.,  xvi,  1 13  sq. ;  xix,  65. 

5  Vol.  I,  p.  105  sq.,  171  sq. 

^  Conim.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  16,  35.     Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  66. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  271  sq.,  iii,  136  sqq.     Coram,  ad  Gal.,  ii,  12  sqq. 

"  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  86. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  397 

the  Law  only  in  the  sense  of  being  treated  by  the  Jews  and 
their  rulers,  the  representatives  of  the  Law,  as  worthy  of  con- 
demnation, and  being  hung  upon  the  cross  as  one  accursed  (Deut. 
xxi.) .  Luther  does  actually,  when  commenting,  for  example,  upon 
Isa.  liii.  8,  speak  of  the  sentence  which  was,  in  the  name  of  the 
Law  and  of  divine  authority,  pronounced  upon  Jesus  by  the  Jews, 
because  He  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God.^  The  declaration, 
that  the  Law  condemned  Jesus  and  proclaimed  Him  accursed, 
he  speaks  of '"  as  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  yews  cried  out 
that,  according  to  the  Law,  Jesus  must  die.  He  further  remarks, 
incidentally,  when  commenting  upon  John  ii.  17,  that,  as  the 
disciples  applied  the  passage,  Ps.  Ixix.  9,  specially  to  Christ, 
although  at  the  same  time  understanding  it  as  applicable  to  all 
good  teachers,  so  Paul  also,  in  Gal.  iii.,  applies  the  declaration  of 
Deut.  xxi.  alone  to  Christ,  although  the  latter  was  not  spoken  of 
Christ,  who  did  not  die  as  a  criminal  and  one  accursed.  He 
adds  the  remark,  that  it  may  have  happened  in  other  cases  also 
that  pious  persons  were  crucified  with  the  guilty,  but  the  former 
were  not  on  that  account  accursed.''  Nevertheless,  it  would  be 
a  gieat  perversion  were  we  to  attempt,  in  consequence  of  such 
statements,  to  restrict  the  significance  of  the  curse  which  Luther 
says  Christ  became  for  us  to  the  outward  condition  in  which  He 
was  placed  by  the  Jews.  The  very  statements  of  the  passage  last 
cited,  and  its  context,  carry  us  beyond  such  a  limitation ;  for  it 
is  there  expressly  said  that  Christ  became  a  curse  ifi  the  sight  of 
God,  and  that  He,  without  dying  as  a  criminal,  yet  undertook  to 
bear  the  curse  for  us ;  and  hence  Paul  speaks  correctly,  although 
the  declaration  of  Moses,  in  its  original  and  general  signification, 
did  not  have  reference  to  Christ.  But  Luther  calls  attention  to 
the  fact  that  "  the  persons  were  dissimilar,"  i.  e.,  Christ  was  in 
his  personal  character  without  criminality  or  unworthiness.  We 
may  compare  his  declaration  made  elsewhere :  *  "  Christ  is  inno- 
cent, in  the  view  of  this  general  Law,  in  His  own  person — He  is  a 
criminal,  in  view  of  this  general  Law,  since  He  was  made  a  curse 
for  us."  Luther  even  declares  that,  since  Christ  "  stepped  into 
our  place  and  offered  to  pay  (the  penalty)  for  us,"  He  suffered 
justly  {es  geschehe  ihm  rechf),  in  the  sense  that,  having   made 

iQp.  Ex.,  xxiii,  298  sq.  "Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  10. 

'  Ibid,  xlvi,  190  sq.  *  Comm.  ad  Gal,,  ii,  32. 


398  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Himself    the   Son  of   God,   He   must  pay  the  penalty  of  death 
affixed  to  blasphemy.     We  men,  like  Adam  himself,  all  want  to  / 
make  ourselves  sons  of  God,  and  to  be  God  :  Christ,  standing 
in  our  place  and  making  such  claim,  must  also  pay  the  appro- 
priate penalty.^     Hence,  although  the  Jews  wrongfully  punished  ^ 
and  cursed  Him  as  having  personally  committed  blasphemy.  He 
was,  as  the  bearer  of  our  sin,  punished  and  made  a  curse  by  the 
divine  Law  itself.     And  to  understand  fully  the  significance  of 
this,  we  must  observe  what  it  is  precisely  which  is  said  to  have 
been  brought  upon  Jesus  by  the  Law  and  its  curse.     The  veri-  "^ 
table  terrors  of  the  Law,  with  its  awful  maledictions,  rolled  upon 
His  inmost  soul.     He  was  fearfully  alarmed  by  the  Law,  and  v- 
experienced  such  great  agony  as  no  man  on  earth  had  ever  known 
before,  until  forced  to  cry  out :   "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast 
Thou  forsaken  me?"     These  were  the  terrors  to  which  we,  as  sin-  V 
ners,  are  liable.'     It  appears  from  Gal.  iii.,  Luther  declares,  that  ^ 
hell  itself  and  the  wrath  of  God  there  laid  hold  upon  Him.^ 

It  was,   therefore,   the  wrath  of  God  Himself  which  Christ  ^ 
endured  when  He  bore  the  curse  of  the  Law  upon  our  sins  then 
resting  upon  Him.     It  was  the  eternal  wrath  of  God,  merited  by  \^ 
our  sins.     Yea,  it  is  only  here  that  I  can  properly  see  and  realize 
that  wrath  of  God  which  the  Law,  in  other  ways  and  in  weaker 
manifestations,  attests.*     It  is ///;/u//;//6'/// which  God  here  suffers  U' 
to  come  upon  Him ;  for  God  has  laid  upon  Him  the  ini(^uity  of 
us  all  (Isa.  liii.  6).     "We  dare  not  emasculate  these  words,  for  ^ 
God  is  not  jesting  in  the  words  of  the  prophet."     The  Lamb  of  U' 
God  bears  our  sins,  and  bearing  is  rightly  interpreted  as  bejng 
punished.     He  is  punished  just  because   He   has  assumed  and  ^ 
bears  our  sins.^     Sin  and  the  wrath  of  God  were  the  cause  of  His  ^ 
death,  just  as  death,  in  the  first  instance,  came  by  sin."     His  death  ^ 
was  "  a  death  from  sin  {Silndeiifod)  and  a  death  of  (due  to)  the 
wrath  of  God."  '     Thus,  the  inner  sufferings,  or  agony,  of  Jesus,  1. 
in  comparison  with  which  the  agony  and  fear  of  all  other  men 

•  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  362  sqq.  2  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  155,  153. 
'  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  4. 

*  Ibid.,   xii,   422;   xxxii,  8;   iii,  137;   xi,    29;   xii,    172.     Comm.    ad    Gal., 
i,  54;  ii,  21,35. 

^  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  16.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  270;  xii,  426. 

®  Cf.  supra,  p.  358. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  119;  iii,  22  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  399 

are  but  trifling  experiences,  was,  in  particular,  a  consciousness  of 
this  divine  wrath.     Thence  came  the  terror  which  preceded  His  i^ 
death.'     Luther   very   frequently    describes   the    condition    into  i^ 
which  Christ  was  then  brought  as  an  abandonment  by  God,  follow- 
ing Matt,  xxvii.  46  and  Ps.  xxii.  i.     Here,  again,  he  regards  as  W 
the  chief  thing  the  experience  in  the  soul  of  Jesus.     He  describes 
this  with  peculiar  vividness  in  the  Operationes  in  Psabnos  (A.  D. 
1521)  under  Ps.   xxii,'   and   his  later  utterances  are  in  perfect 
harmony  with   the  views  there   expressed.     He   himself,  in  his 
Exposition  of  the  Fsa/nis  of  A.  D.  ijjo,  refers  to  the  earlier 
commentary  with  the  confession  that  no  human  heart  is  capable, 
indeed,  of  entirely  comprehending  such  a  divine  abandonment.'' 
God,  says  he,*  is  life,  light,  wisdom,  righteousness,  mercy,  power,  U 
peace,  salvation,  and  everything  that  is  good.     To  be  abandoned  t^ 
by  God  is  to  be  in  death,  darkness,  folly,  sin,  weakness,  distress, 
despair,  and  eternal  condemnation.     This  is  the  crowning  suffer-  U' 
ing  {^sununa passio)  of  Christ.     God  "  permits  Christ  to  rest  under  ^ 
(stick  fast  in)  guilt,  sin,  folly,  etc.,  in  order  that  He  may  be  left 
in  the  hand  of  the  devil."     In  His  heart  and  conscience  Christ  l^ 
there  suffered  as  do  we  sinners.     As  God  punishes  sinners  not  ^ 
only  with  death,  but  with  the  terrors  of  an  alarmed  conscience, 
which  feels  the  eternal  wrath  of  God  and  seems  to  itself  to  have 
been  forever  cast  away  from  His  presence,  so  Christ  suffered  the 
terrors  of  a  conscience  alarmed  and  tasting  the  eternal  wrath  of 
God.     It  was  necessary  for  Him   to  experience  for  us  in  His  ^ 
innocent,  tender  heart  eternal  death  and  condemnation,  and  to 
endure,  in  short,  everything  which  a  lost  sinner  has  merited  and 
must  eternally  suffer.^     This  is  truth,  and  dare  not  be  diluted  nor  i^ 
emasculated  by  human  levity.®     God  assumed  toward  Him  the  v 
attitude  of  an  enemy,  with  whom  He  was  obliged  to  struggle, 
striking  not  at  His  outward  nature  (skin),  but  striking  so  deeply 
that  the  very  marrow  of  His  bones  grew  faint ;  for  when  God 
thus  contends  with  man,  there  can  be  for  him  nothing  but  unrest 
and  the  agony  of  hell.'     These  sufferings  prove  clearly  that  He  ^ 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  23,  25,  202.  2Qp    y,x.,  xvi. 

3  Ibid.,  xvii,  182.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxxviii,  217. 

*0p.  Ex.,  xvi,  244  sqq.      Cf.  xvii,  182. 

5  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  1.  c;  iii,  283;  xvii,  76;  xxxiii,  488.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  47  sq. 

*0p.  Ex.,  xvi,  248.  '  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiv,  206. 


40p  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

was  enduring  the  hatred  of  God.'  To  this  inward  agony  the  k 
human  enemies  of  Jesus  contributed  by  their  mocking  cries 
(Matt,  xxvii.  42  sq.),  and  especially  by  the  taunt:  "  If  He  hath 
pleasure  in  Him  "  (Ps.  xxii.  8).  They  thus  increased  the  agony  u 
and  spiritual  distress  which  He  felt  in  the  presence  of  the  God 
who  was  forsaking  and  even  hating  Him.  Their  words  were  fiery  v 
darts  of  the  Wicked  One  (Eph.  vi.  16),  which  pierced  Him  to 
the  heart.-  After  all  the  above,  it  is  evident  that  the  clear  and 
constantly-recurring  declarations  of  Luther,  in  regard  to  the 
inner,  spiritual  sufferings  of  Jesus,  dare  not  be  explained  away 
simply  because,  in  a  single  passage  of  his  earlier  writings,'  he 
remarks  that  Christ  was  not,  as  are  we,  accursed  and  become 
sin  itself  in  both  body  and  spirit,  but  only  in  His  body.*  We  can 
easily  understand,  also,  how  he  could  at  one  time  describe  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  in  Gethsemane  as  the  greatest  which  He  was 
called  upon  to  bear,  inasmuch  as  He  there  already  endured  the 
agony  of  soul  which  was  so  much  greater  than  the  physical  suffer- 
ing, and  could  yet,  at  another  time,  describe  in  the  same  way  the 
sufferings  upon  the  cross,  inasmuch  as  Christ  in  the  garden  still 
enjoyed  the  consoling  ministrations  of  an  angel.  Upon  both  '^ 
occasions,  the  greatest  suffering  was  that  of  the  soul  in  its  sense 
of  abandonment  by  God.^ 

In  being  forsaken  of  God,  finally,  Jesus  was,  as  we  have  seen,  1/ 
left  /;/   the  hand  of  the  devil.     The  latter  not  only  prepared  for  I 
Him   the   tortures   to  be   endured   at    the   hands   of   men,   and 
brought  Him   to  the  cross,"  but  he  assailed  Him  with  peculiar 
malignity  in   the  very  tortures  of   soul  of  which  we  have  been 
speaking.     Inasmuch   as  Jesus  no    longer    received,   as   before,  ^ 
consolation  directly  from  God,  the  devil  gains  an  opportunity  to 
assail  Him  more  severely  than   before.'     He   presses   into  His  ^ 
heart  the  fiery  dart,  that  He  is  resting  under  the  displeasure  of 
God.*     He   grinds  his   teeth  at  the  prospect  of  devouring   the  V 
innocent  Lamb,  so  that  the  guileless  man  is  forced  to  tremble 
and  quail  like  a  lost  sinner.® 

1  Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  489.  '  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  270  sq. 

*  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  313  (A.  D.,  15 19). 

*  The  earlier  commentary  upon  Galatians  does  not  so  fully  as  the  latter  de. 
velop  the  general  idea  of  the  curse  which  rested  upon  Christ. 

»0p.  Ex.,  X,  218  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  76;  xviii,  II.      «  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  100. 
'  Ibid.,  iii,  197.  *  Ibid.,  201.  ®  Ibid.,  xxxix,  48. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  4OI 

Christ  thus  experienced  hell  itself.     There  was  in  Him  the  u 
sensation   of  an  actually  present  hell,  a  feeling  of  hellish  fire. 
Forsaken  of  God,  He  was  for  a  time  in  hell.'     By  "  hell  "  is  not  . 
here  meant  the  place  of  the  departed,  as  Christ  suffered  the 
torments  in  question,  not  in  a  place  of  the  dead,  but  while  in  the 
flesh.     He  may  rather  be  said  to  have  here  in  the  flesh  suffered  -- 
the  punishment  of  Gehenna,  /.  <?.,  of  hellish  fire,  for  the  ungodly. 
^^  Sensit poenam  infernalemy  ^ 

As  to  the  relation  of  this  experience  of  Jesus  to  His  nature,  we  ^ 
must  recall  that  feature  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ  which  acknowledges  the  possibility  of  a  withdrawal  of  the 
divinity  within  itself.  Luther  appeals  also,  on  the  one  hand,  to  ^ 
the  human  nature  which  Jesus  had  assumed,  as  being  a  nature 
mortal  and  subject  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  to  the  weakness  of 
the  flesh,  which  He  had  in  common  with  us,  although  without 
sin — a  nature  whose  natural  inclinations  would  have  preferred 
pleasure  to  suffering,  and  which  even  struggled  against  His  willing 
spirit — and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  the  purity,  soundness,  and 
delicacy  of  His  innocent  human  nature,  which,  on  account  of 
these  characteristics,  must  have  felt  all  the  more  deeply  that 
which  was  so  contrary  to  its  own  nature.^ 

Yet  we  must,  despite  all  that  has  been  said,  constantly  reaffirm,  v' 
with  Luther,  that  there  was  in  the  experience  of  Christ  no  guilt 
nor  curse  in  the  propel  sense  of  these  terms.     Nor  was  He  really  ^ 
rejected  or  abandoned  by  God,  as  one  who  is  on  account  of  his 
own  sin  rejected  and  accursed.     In  regard  to  the  curse,  Luther  ^ 
can   even  say:    According  to  the  oitt7itarel  appearance  it  seemed 
as   though   Christ  were    accursed.^     Yet  he  does   not,   on    this 
account,  detract  in  the  least  from  what  he  has  said  as  to  the 
actual  bea7-ing  of  the  curse  in  our  stead.     In  the  very  passage  in 
question,  for  example,  he  proceeds  to  say :  But,  according  to  the 
spirit   (as  .contrasted  with  the  "outward  appearance  "),  Christ 
bears  the  pains  of  us  all — is  punished  for  us.     We  must  particu- 
larly observe,  further,  that  Luther  does  not  mean  us  to  understand 

'Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  244  sq.,  259      Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  48;  xviii,  7  ;  cf.  supra,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  105  sq. 
/'Op.  Ex.,  X,  219;  xxiii,  488. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  14.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  238;  xv,  370;  xvii,  122.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii, 
199.     Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  245  sq. ;  xxiii,  488. 
J^'  *  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  270.     Cf.  the  passage  above  cited,  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  190  sq. 
26 


402  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  "  abandonment  "  of  Christ  as  implying  that  God  was  actually 
far  away,  or   alienated,   from    the    suffering   Saviour ;    nor    His 
**  wrath  "   as  indicating  that  He  was  actually  personally  angry 
with  Christ.     He  would   have   us   conceive  the  state  of  divine  V' 
abandonment  as  analogous  to  the  conditions  of  spiritual  distress 
into  which  other  pious  persons  are  permitted  to  fall.     In  fact,  v 
the  association  of  Jesus  with  other  similarly-afiflicted  pious  persons 
in  this  trying  experience  is  a  marked  characteristic  of  Luther's 
view  of  it.     The  personal  sense  of  suffering  is,  for  him,  in  both  ^ 
instances  the  same,  however  the  cases  may  differ  in  degree  and 
in  the  immediate  cause  of  the  infliction.     Thus,  he  describes  the  "^ 
sufferings  which  true  believers  must  yet  endure  through  spiritual 
temptations  as  a  repetition  in  their  experience  of  the  sufferings 
of  Jesus  in  His  abandonment  by  God.     They  are,  he  affirms,  but  V 
slight  as  compared  with  those  of  the  Saviour,  and,  in  view  of  His 
triumph  over  the  latter,  they  cannot  now  harm  His  true  followers. 
The  chief   example  of  such  a  condition  presented  in   the   Old  ^ 
Testament  he  finds  m  the  sufferings  of  Job.     He  cites,  also,  the  ^ 
instance  of  Jacob's  wrestling  with  God.'     In  all  such  cases,  the  '^ 
"  abandoned  "  or  "  forsaken  "  one  is  far  from  salvation  and  from 
God,  in   the  sense  of  no  longer  experiencing  anything   of  the 
grace  and  power  of  God,  but  realizing,  on  the  contrary,  in  his 
conscience,  the  divine  wrath ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  salvation 
of  God  and  divine  assistance  are  really  very  near  to  him,  and  the 
God  who  is  felt  to  be  hostile  and  angry  is,  and  remains,  in  fact, 
pure  goodness  and  mercy .^     The  former  condition  is,  in  the  case  >- 
of  Christ,  revealed  in  His  cry ;  "  Thou  hast  forsaken  me  "  ;  the 
latter,    in    the    form  of   address:    "  My  God."     He    could   not  ^ 
have  said,  "  My  God,"  if  He  had  been  totally  abandoned  ;  and 
the  words  constitute  an  acknowledgment  that  He  was,  after  all, 
not  forsaken.     Thus  there  remained  also  to  Christ,  although  He 
as  a  natural  man  so  quailed  beneath  His  sufferings.  His  divine 
power,  by  virtue  of  which  He  surrendered  Himself  to  the  will  of 
God   and   came   off  conqueror   in   the   awful  trial,  whereas  any 
creature  must  have  perished  under  the  burden  of  a  single  sin. 
Christ  was,  in  reality,  according  to  Luther,  not  only  at  the  same 
time  supremely  righteous  and  supremely  sinful,  but,  similarly  also, 

^Cf.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  243,  250  sq.,  271,  253;  iii,  283;  xxiii,  489.     Erl.  Ed., 
xxxix,  45  sqq.  ;   xxxiv,  206  sq.  ;   ix,  9 1.      Supra,  p.  238. 
'Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  250  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiv,  207. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  403 

in  the  midst  of  supreme  despair  supremely  triumphant,  and  in 
the  midst  of   supreme    condemnation    supremely  blessed.     Yet  A^ 
Luther  always  maintains  that,  /;/  His  ozun  feeling,  Jesus  endured 
the  entire  punishment.     The  entire  context  shows  that  he  does*^ 
not  mean  to  attribute  to  Him  any  feeling  of  blessedness.     Even  ^ 
the  confession  that  He  is  after  all  not  abandoned,  expressed  in 
His  outcry  upon  the  cross,  must  be  interpreted  as  the  struggling 
utterance  of  a  heart  which  yet,  in  its  actual  feeling,  experiences  . 
nothing  but   midnight    darkness    and   wrath,'     Nor   are    we    to  ^ 
modify  our  conception  of  the  "  hellish  "  pains  which  He  endured, 
because  the  latter  are  attributed  also  to  other  pious  persons  in 
spiritual  distress.     On  the  contrary,  we  do  not  rightly  understand 
the  sufferings  of  such  afflicted  saints  until  we  recognize  that  they 
experience  therein  a  foretaste  of  hell — are  in  hell.''     Christ  thus 
remains  ever  distinguished  from  the  condemned  sinners  whose 
penalty  of   suffering  He  bears,   by   the   relation  in  which  God 
stands  to  Him,  and  that  which  He,  independently  of  His  personal 
feeling,  still  really  maintains  toward  God.     Mortcover,  the  feeling 
in  question  is  but  transitory.     Yet,  in  its  vivid  intensity^  it  is  still, 
as  we  have  seen,  a  sense  of  "  eternal  "  wrath,  in  which  the  Saviour 
experienced  "  the  never-ending  wrath  of  the  eternal  God,"  and 
"  eternal  and  irremissible  punishment."  ^ 

Christ  had,  accordingly,  to  endure  in  His  suifferijigs  and  death  u 
the  wrath  of  God,  the  assaults  of  the  devil,  the  curse  of  the  Law, 
the  burden  and  the  punishment  of  sin.     We  must  yet  consider  ^ 
more  carefully  the  relation  of  these  various  elements  of  His  suffer- 
ings to  one  another,  or  the  relation  of  those  having  other  than 
divine  origin  to  God.     It  is  an  essential  feature  of  Luther's  pre-  ^ 
sentation  of  the  subject,  that,  while  representing  the  entire  suiTer- 
ings  of  Christ,  on  the  one  hand,  as  ordained  by  God,  he  yet,  at 
the  same  time,  uniformly  describes  that  which  was  inflicted  upon 
the  Saviour  from  other  sources  as  gross  injustice,  or  wrong ;  and 
that  he  then  holds  it  to  have  been  in  consequence  of  this  wrong 
perpetrated  upon  Christ  that  its  authors  have  been  condemned, 
removed,  and  have  lost  their  power  over  us. 

It  is  not  diiificult  to  understand  the  position  which  Luther  here 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  242  sq.,  250.    Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  24,  29. 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xvii,  52,  57.     Cf.  the  infernales  poenas,  spoken  of  in  Vol.  I.,  p.  58. 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xiv,  319;  xvi,  59. 


404  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

ascribes  to  the  devil.     The  latter  must  always,  as  we  have  already  U 
learned,'  even  in  the  evil  deeds  which  he  performs  in  connection 
with  his  own  will  and  character,  serve  the  purposes  and  ways  of 
God.     He  has  received  authority  from  God  Himself  to  be  the  v 
executioner  of  sinful  men ;  but,  in  slaying  Christ,  he  acts,  as  far 
as  possible  to  him,  in  direct  contravention  of  the  authority  given 
him,  since   he  does   it  wantonly,  as  though   Christ  Himself  had 
committed    sin.'     Nevertheless,   Luther    can    still   describe    the  ^ 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  and  thus  also  that  which  the  devil 
visited  upon  Him,  as  accomplished  in  accordance  with  divine 
justice  ;  ■'  for  God  does  not  here  deal  wantonly  with  the  innocent, 
but  acts  in  full  view  of  the  fact  that  Christ  had  taken  our  guilt 
and   punishment   upon  Himself.     It  is,   therefore,   certainly  in  v 
accord  with  Luther's  view  to  say  that  the  devil,  even  when  seeking 
with  all  his  power  to  destroy  Christ,  was  serving  God  and  divine 
justice. 

The  relation  of  the  Laio  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  appears 
more  difficult  to  comprehend.  How  are  we  to  understand  the 
declarations,  that  the  Law  has  done  wrong,  and  committed  a 
crime,  in  the  exercise  upon  Him,  its  Lord,  of  the  authority  given 
to  be  exercised  only  upon  sinners — that  it  runs  off  in  company 
with  death  and  the  devil,  etc.?*  Is  not  the  Law,  according  to 
Luther,  directly  from  God?  And  is  not  God  alone,  in  this  feature 
of  the  transaction,  the  agent?  Was  it  not  He  who  allowed 
Christ  to  place  Himself  under  the  Law?  Is  it  not  He  Himself 
who,  by  the  withdrawal  of  His  grace,  causes  Christ  to  feel  the 
curse  of  the  Law?  Is  it  not  God's  own  Law  that  ordained  that, 
"  since  Christ  was,  as  He  Himself  desired,  to  be  made  a  curse 
for  us,  no  other  death  would  be  suitable  for  Him  than  that  upon 
the  tree,  which  the  Word  of  God  had  declared  to  be  an  accursed 
death"?''  We  cannot  solve  the  difficulty  by  supposing  that 
Luther  has  here  in  view,  not  the  Law  itself,  but  the  Jews,  who 
made  a  criminal  use  of  the  Law  ;  for,  although,  in  the  writings  of 
Luther,  the  ideas  of  the  atrocity  of  the  Law  and  that  of  those 
who  apply  it  do  occasionally  coalesce,  yet,  in  the  case  under  con- 

'Of.,  supra,  pp.  290  sqq.,  335.  ^^  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  90. 

^  Ibid.,  1,  362;  supra,  p.    397. 

*  Ibid.,  XV,  261  sqq.;  i,  310  ;  iv,  10;  x,  310  sq. ;  li,  271  sqq.  Comm.  ad  Gal., 
ii,  151  sqq. 

5  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  139. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  405 

sideration,  he  usually  speaks  directly  of  an  action  of  the  Law 
itself,  and  only  thus  could  he  find  in  such  action  the  ground  upon 
which  the  Law  itself  is  condemned.  We  must  rather  conclude 
that,  in  his  exceedingly  plastic  presentation  of  the  subject,  he  here 
conceives  of  the  Law,  with  its  power  to  kill  and  curse,  as  an 
entity  separately  existing  and  acting,  and,  leaving  out  of  view 
entirely  its  connection  with  the  will  of  God  Himself,  personifies 
it  independently.  He  could  the  more  easily  be  led  to  such  a 
conception,  since  killing  and  condemning  aie  at  any  rate,  in  his 
view,  only  the  "  strange  work  "  of  God.  The  Law,  thus  con- 
sidered, like  the  devil  himself,  fell  upon  the  innocent  One, 
without  regard  for  His  innocence,  and  in  order  to  destroy  Him 
utterly  as  a  sinner — whereas  God  Himself,  who  permitted  the 
assault,  dealt  in  the  matter  only  in  the  way  and  with  the  purpose 
already  indicated.  Luther  speaks  also,  in  precisely  the  same  way, 
of  the  assaults  of  the  Law  and  death  upon  believers,  declaring 
that  they,  though  no  longer  having  any  right  to  do  so,  assail  the 
conscience  of  the  redeemed  child  of  God,  but  must  flee  from  the 
latter  in  shame  and  terror  when  He  reminds  them  of  the  wrong 
which  they  have  perpetrated  upon  Christ.'  Luther  speaks  thus, 
although  at  the  same  time  teaching  us  to  regard  the  assaults  of 
the  Law  upon  Christian  believers  as  a  divine  visitation.  It  is 
evident  that,  in  speaking  thus  with  regard  to  the  experiences 
either  of  Christ  Himself  or  of  His  followers,  he  does  not  use  the 
word  "  Law  "  literally,  although  it  is  certain  that  he  would  have 
us  understand  in  the  most  literal  sense  what  is  declared,  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  terms,  of  the  devil.  The  latter  is,  for  him,  a  real 
person,  as  the  Law,  of  course,  is  not.  We  find  a  similar  form  of 
personification  in  the  statements  concerning  the  wrong  perpe- 
trated by  death  in  slaying  Jesus,  and  by  sin  in  condemning  Him.* 
We  have  thus  far  considered,  in  a  general  may,  the  holy  obedi- 
ence of  Christ,  the  benefit  of  which  we  are  to  enjoy,  and  our 
sufferings,  which  Christ  took  upon  Himself.  The  question  now 
meets  us  :  /«  how  far  has  deliverance  by  these  means  been  accom- 
plished for  tis  ?  The  deliverance  is  chiefly,  as  we  have  seen,  from  V 
guilt,  punishment  and  wrath.  In  how  far  can  we,  upon  the 
ground  of  the  work  of  Christ  as  above  described,  be  freed  from 
these?     Luther  speaks  very  frequently  of  z. payment  which  Christ  V 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  X,  311.  ^Ibid.,  X,  310;  xii,  426;  xv,  332. 


4o6  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

has  thus  made  for  our  sins ;  and  this  he  represents,  further,  as  a 
payment  made  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  divine 
justice,  or  as  a  satisfaction  rendeixd  to  tlie  divine  righteousness} 
The  forgiveness  of  sins,  he  explains,  does  not  consist  entirely  and 
only  in  the  divine  imputation,  /.  e.,  in  the  simple  non-imputing  of 
sin,  as  though  the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  sinners  had  been  an 
unnecessary  labor,  and  God  had  in  them  carried  on  a  mere  sham 
battle,  whereas  He  could  have  forgiven  sins  had  Christ  not  thus 
suffered ;  but  God  would  not  perform  the  act  of  non-imputation 
"  unless  satisfaction  should  first,  by  all  means  and  superabun- 
dantly, be  rendered  to  His  Law  and  His  righteousness."  This  was 
done,  because  it  was  for  us  an  impossible  task,  by  Christ,  who 
was  appointed  to  take  our  place.  It  was  accomplished,  more-  v/ 
over,  according  to  Luther,  by  a  two-fold  process,  /.  e.,  by  Christ's 
taking  upon  Himself  in  His  sufferings  all  our  punishment,  and 
by  His  fulfilling  of  the  Law  in  our  behalf.  It  is  the  former  of 
these  methods,  however,  which  Luther  chiefly  emphasizes  when 
speaking  of  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ.  What  Christ 
did  in  this  capacity  is  represented  as  having  such  efficacy  by 
virtue  of  His  nature  and  person  :  "  There  must  here  be  a  pay- 
ment of  sin  as  great  as  is  God  Himself,  who  has  been  offended 
by  sin."  Luther  names  also,  m  connection  with  the  justice  of 
God,  His  "  honor."  In  demanding  that  satisfaction  be  rendered 
for  sin,  "  God  would  have  His  honor  and  justice  recompensed 
(paid)."  Thus  Christ  took  upon  Himself  the  wrath  of  God, 
who,  as  the  eternal  righteousness  and  purity,  hates  sin,  and 
thereby  reconciled  God — /.  e.,  the  divine  wrath — and  reconciled 
us  to  God.^  Luther  would,  indeed,  have  liked  to  see  the  word, 
"  satisfaction  "  (  Geni/i^thi/iing),  entirely  banished  from  the  Church 
and  theology,  on  account  of  the  misuse  of  it  in  the  prevalent 
doctrine  concerning  man's  own  works ;  yet  he  continues  to 
employ  it  in  connection  with  the  work  of  Christ,  which  he  sets  in 
direct  contrast  with  man's  futile  efforts.  Jt  makes,  however,  he  l/ 
holds,  far  too  little  account  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  and  does  not 
give  sufficient  recognition  to  the  sufferings  which  He  endured ; 
since  Christ  not  only  rendered  satisfaction  for  sin,  but  also  deliv- 

^  Cf.,  supra,   p.  2S4  sq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  298  sqq..  175  sq..  178,  195;  xv.  3S5  ;  x.  172;  xi,  290;  x, 
172.  As  to  the  "paying  "  and  "  reconciling  "  of  the  wrath  of  God,  compare 
further,  e.  g.,  iii,  137  sq. ;  xlvi,  315  sq. ;  1,  179. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  407 

ered  us  from  the  power  of  death,  the  devil  and  hell,  and  estab- 
lished an  everlasting  kingdom  of  grace  and  of  daily,  perpetual 
forgiveness.  The  term  does  not  include,  by  far,  all  that  is  em-w- 
braced  in  the  saving  work  of  Christ.'  In  contrast  with  the  idea,  v- 
that  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ's  sufferings  is  not  all- 
sufficient  but  must  be  supplemented  by  man's  own  efforts, 
Luther  declares  :  Even  a  drop  of  Christ's  innocent  blood  would 
be  more  than  enough  for  the  sin  of  the  whole  world ;  but  the 
Father  desired  to  pour  out  His  grace  upon  us  so  abundantly  that 
He  allowed  the  Son  to  shed  all  His  blood,  and  bestowed  this 
treasure  all  upon  us.'^ 

The  chief  stress  in  the  rendering  of  this  satisfaction  is  thus  ^ 
laid,  as  has  been  said,  upon  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
in  which  He  bears  our  sins.     But  it  must  be  observed  also  that,  ^ 
in  connection  with  this  suffering,  Luther  always  keeps  in  view 
the  moral  character  and  the  active  moral  deportment  of  Jesus 
in  assuming  and  enduring  it.     It  is  this,  again,  which  gives  to  i 
the  sufferings  of  Chiist  their  validity  and  value  in  the  sight  of 
God.     The  blood  of  Christ  is  innocent.     It  is  the  holiness  and  ^  ^ 
spotlessness  of  the  sacrifice  that  avail.     Christ  atoned  (paid)  for  \y 
us  by  the  suffering  of  a  pure,  innocent  death.''     This  brings  us  U- 
back  again   to   the  observation,  that    Luther  combines   in  one 
general  conception  the  validity  and  efficacy  of  Christ's  sufferings 
and  that  of  His  active  obedience.     It  is  His  obedience  by  which  v 
we  are  sanctified  and  justified.     It  pleases  the  Father  that  He  U 
has  out  of  love  given  His  life  for  lis;  and,  on  account  of  the 
blamelessness  of  His  love  and  obedience.  His  believing  followers 
are  also  well-pleasing    in   the  sight  of    the  Father.*     Even    the  ^ 
culminating  experience  in  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  /".  e.,  His  pro- 
longed agony  of  soul,  is  regarded  by  Luther  as  a  testing  of  His 
moral  character.     This  is  involved  in  the  frequent  representation 
of  His  sufferings  as  finding  a  parallel  in  the  spiritual  temptations 
of  other  yjious  persons,  as  the  prominent  thought  in  the  latter 
cases  is  always  that  of  a  moral  fortitude  under  the  trial.     We 
must  be   careful,  howeve-r,  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  never  to  lose 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  280.     Op.  Ex.,  x,  125,  134.     Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  296  sq. 
^  Ibid.,  li,  366.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  195. 
3  Ibid.,  xii,  422  ;  iv,  302  ;   xx,   160   16  . 
*  Supra,  p.  391.      Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  z-. 


4o8  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

sight  of  the  significance  of  the  "  punitive  suffering,"  to  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  such  great  importance  is  to  be  attached,  inas- 
much as  the  terrors  which  He  is  called  upon  to  endure  have 
come  upon  Him  simply  because  He  took  upon  Himself  our  sin 
and  its  curse.  Thus  Jesus,  in  the  very  moment  of  His  supreme 
distress,  in  which  He  yet  did  not  lose  His  confidence  in  God,  is 
presented  to  us  as  our  pattern.  The  assaults  made  upon  Him 
by  the  devil  as  He  hung  upon  the  cross  are  represented  as 
parallel  with  the  Satanic  temptation  in  the  wilderness.  They 
were  essentially  temptations  to  allure  Him  from  fellowship  with 
God.  Luther  cites  also  the  statements  of  Heb.  v.  8:  ii.  18.' 
He  does  not,  however,  when  seeking  to  assist  persons  in  spiritual 
distress  to  overcome  their  fear  of  wrath  and  hell,  commonly 
develop  any  further  the  idea  that  Christ  was  thus  morally  testedj^ 
but  he  comprises  the  whole  general  subject  in  the  statement,  that 
Christ  has  borne  what  now  alarms  us,  and — has  overcome  it. 

In  regard  to  God  Himself,  finally,  to  whose  justice  salvation  is 
rendered  and  who  is  reconciled,  it  is  to  be  ever  borne  in  mind, 
that  the  reconciliation  was  instituted  by  Him  when,  purely  out 
of  His  own  unfathomable  mercy,  He  sent  forth  His  Son  to  render 
satisfaction,  in  order  that  thus  the  way  might  be  prepared  for 
mercy  to  work  upon  us  and  in  us,  and  to  crown  us  with  eternal 
blessings  and  salvation.^ 

With  the  above  views  concerning  the  satisfaction  which  has 
been  rendered  to  the  divine  righteousness  we  may  associate  also 
the  deliverances  already  cited  concerning  the  final  judgment  of 
the  devil,  the  Law,  etc.,  inasmuch  as  it  is,  in  both  instances,  an 
exercise  of  justice  which  is  thought  of.  That  Christ  was,  by 
virtue  of  His  personal  character,  upon  the  ground  of  justice,  free 
from  the  Law  and  its  curse,  which  He  suffered  to  fall  upon  Him, 
is  set  before  us  vividly  in  the  assertion  that  the  Law  itself  was 
guilty  of  injustice  in  its  treatment  of  Him.  The  integrity  before 
the  Law  which  believers  now  possess,  by  virtue  of  their  fellowship 
with  Him,  is  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  the  condemnation  of  the 
Law  for  the  injustice  visited  by  it  upon  Christ  now  inures  also  to 
their  benefit.     We  would,  furthermore,  destroy  the  peculiar  char- 

*  Comp.  the  above-cited  passages  concerning  Christ's  abandonment  by  God 
and  wrestling  with  Him.  Also,  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  31  ;  ii,  r34,  136.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi, 
249,  254;  xvii,  122. 

2 Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  249,  *  Supra,  p.  285.     Eil.  Ed.,  xv,  385;  vii,  175. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  409 

acteristic  feature  of  Luther's  teaching  if  we  should  attempt  to 
reduce  all  his  figurative  utterances  to  the  precise  limits  of  his 
literal  dogmatic  statements.  He  employs  such  figures  of  speech, 
evidently,  in  the  consciousness  that  they  suggest  more  than  can 
be  expressed  in  literal  terms  and  precise  definitions. 

But  in  thus  apprehending  the  obedience  and  the  sufferings  of 
Jesus,  and  especially  in  their  relation  to  divine  justice,  we  have 
by  no  means  reached  the  limit  of  Luther's  conception  and  teach- 
ing in  regard  to  the  once-for-all  completed  work  of  the  Saviour. 
We  have  seen  that  the  idea  of  "  satisfaction  "  did  not  content 
the  Reformer  himself. 

We  are  led  further  by  his  representation  of  Christ  as  "  over- 
coming.'''' He  is  said  to  have  overcome  all  the  burdens  which 
He  bore  and  all  the  powers  beneath  which  He  trembled — sin. 
Law,  devil,  death  and  hell.  Even  though  Luther  speaks  of 
injustice,  which  these  hostile  powers  have  perpetrated,  and  of 
their  consequent  condemnation,  he  yet  says  again,  in  general, 
that  Christ  has  overpowered  and  overcome  them.  This  He 
accomplished  already  in  Gethsemane  and  upon  the  cross,  stand- 
ing firm  in  His  temptation,  vanquishing  by  His  divine  power '  in 
the  distress  which  would  have  been  for  any  creature  unendurable, 
experiencing  and  conquering  the  terrors  of  the  Law,'  and  quench- 
ing in  His  innocent  heart  the  fiery  darts  of  Satan.*  Luther  refers 
here,  finally,  with  very  special  emphasis,  to  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  After  having  on  the  cross  had  all  these  powers  resting 
upon  Him,  and  having  died  beneath  the  burden.  He  now  reveals 
Himself  as  Lord  over  them  all.  They  have  made  trial  of  their 
power  upon  Him,  but  have  accomplished  nothing.  He  rises 
again  from  death  in  all  His  power,  and,  as  the  Psalm  declares, 
takes  captivity  captive,  i.  <?.,  breaks  the  power  of  the  hostile 
forces  and  takes  from  them  their  dominion.*  Luther  opposes  w 
specifically  to  death,  in  this  transaction,  the  eternal  divine  life 
dwelling  in  Christ — in  the  "  strange  war  in  which  death  and  life 
struggled"  and  life  gained  the  victory.  To  the  sin  assailing*^ 
Christ,  he  opposes  His  invincible  holiness,  or  even  the  "  right- 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  24.  ^Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  155. 

•^Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  201. 

*Ibid.,  iii,  29;  iv,  7.  In  reference  especially  to  the  Law,  cf.,  e.  g.,  Comm. 
ad  Gal.,  ii,  1 56:  Vanquished  upon  the  cross,  it  is  completely  condemned  and 
abolished  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 


4IO  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

eousness  of  the  Father"  (John  xvi.  8  sq.)  dweUiug  in  Him  and 
swallowing  up  all  our  sin ;  to  the  Law,  His  unassailable  character 
and  His  exaltation  above  it ;  to  the  devil,  His  superior  power 
and  Himself  as  divine  ;  to  them  each,  and  all  in  general,  His 
divine  nature.  His  righteousness,  His  power.  His  life,  and  the 
divine  grace  which  resided  in  Him — and  to  the  sins  of  men  also, 
e.  g..  His  divine  authority  by  virtue  of  which  they  are  blotted  out 
and  cannot  hold  Him,  whilst  He,  on  the  contrary,  rises  in  triumph 
over  them  in  the  resurrection.'  To  the  struggle  with  these  powers 
and  victory  over  them,  belongs  also,  as  we  shall  observe  more  par- 
ticularly hereafter,  not  only  the  resurrection  which  followed  the 
death  of  Christ,  but  also  the  descent  into  hell  which  occurred  in 
the  interval  between  these  two  events.  Luther's  conception  of 
the  conquest  of  the  devil  being  that  the  latter  swallowed  Christ  at 
His  death,  imagining  that  He  would  in  consequence  of  His  weak 
humanity  prove  an  easy  morsel  to  swallow,  but  that  Jesus,  even 
while  dead,  put  an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  the  devil — he,  with 
Gregory  the  Great,  represents  the  transaction  under  the  figure  of 
leviathan,  or  the  great  whale,  which,  with  the  angle-worm,  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  swallowed  also  the  sharp  hook,  His  divinity; 
and  under  that  of  the  whale,  which  the  little  ichneumon  allows 
to  play  with  it  and  take  it  in  its  jaws,  in  order  then  to  rend  the 
intestines  of  the  great  animal.  The  devil,  represented  hitherto 
as  condemned  on  account  of  the  wrong  perpetrated  by  him 
against  Christ,  here  appears  as  deceived  by  divine  strategy. 
Luther  speaks  also  with  reference  to  the  Law,  not  only  of  a 
wrong  perpetrated  by  it,  but  also  of  a  deception  practiced  upon 
it,  declaring  that  Christ  secretly  crept  beneath  it,  and  it  then 
thought  that  it  had  in  Him  a  mere  man.  Death  itself  is  also 
personified,  and  then  spoken  of  by  Luther  _as  interchangeable 
with  the  devil.' 

What,  then,  is,  for  Luther,  involved  in  this  conquest?  We 
must  reply :  In  general,  the  entire  abolition  of  the  opposing 
forces  in  their  fundamental  character,  in  such  a  way  that  there 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  302  sqq.  ;  Ivi,  321.  Comm.  ad  CJal.,  ii,  21.  Erl.  Ed.,  xii, 
97;  xvii,  117;  XV,  58.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  157.  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  150;  iii, 
342.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  20  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  117  ;   xi,  196. 

'Ibid.,  xviii,  91,  7;  xlv,  318;  xxxiii,  107;  xv,  261  ;  xviii,  176.  A?  to 
the  rending  of  the  body  of  death  and  the  devil,  cf.  supra,  p.  126,  and  espe- 
cially, also,  Vol.  I.,  p.   171. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  4I I 

is   thereby  revealed   the    real,    eternal,    exhaustless    Power   and 
Source  of  our  deliverance  from  all  evil  and  of  the  new  life,  in  the 
most  comprehensive  sense  of  the  word.     Upon  the  side  of  Christ,  w 
however,  we   must  combine  with   the  victory  achieved   in   the 
resurrection   also   the   entire  state  and  activity  into   which    He 
enters  through  the  resurrection.     Thus,  it  is  taught  that,  having  xy 
by  His  resurrection  vanquished  sin,  death  and  hell.  He  now  sits 
in  eternal  life  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  reigns  over  all  things, 
gathers  His  Church  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  represents 
believers  in  His  intercessions,  and  gives  to  them  the  power  of  His 
Holy  Spirit  that  they  may  overcome  sin,  death  and   the  devil.' 
In  His  ascent  from  death  to  the  skies,  He  led  captive  the  cap-j/' 
tivity  of  sin  in  such  a  way  that  it  can  no  longer  accuse  and  con- 
demn us,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  such  a  way  that  the  power  of 
its  enticements  and  allurements  over  us  is  at  an  end.     Christ  ^' 
now  reigns  in  a  new  life.     Death  has  lost  all  its  power,  and  thus  ^- 
we  also  are  made  alive  in  Christ.     Here,  too,  as  the  cuise  of  the  ^'■ 
Law  has  been  overcome,  so,  likewise,  the  entire  office  of  the  Law 
as  a  taskmaster  has  been  for  us  abolished.     This  liberty  is  im-  \y 
parted  to  us  in  faith  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  ascended 
Christ  bestows  upon  us.'^     Luther  attributes  this  all-coviprchensive  \y 
conquest  and  diotting  out  of  sin,  etc.,  together  with  reconciliation 
with  God,  also,  it  is  true,  to  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ ;  * 
but  he  regards  it  as  finally  completed  only  in  the  resurrection. 
And  the  fact  itself,  that  we  have  been  reconciled  to  God  and 
have  forgiveness,  though  commonly  associated  by  Luther  directly 
with  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  is  yet,  again,  represented  ^s  fully 
assured  only  by  the  resurrection.     He  declares  that  Christ  "  suffers 
for  us,  rises  from  the  dead,  and  thus  reconciles  us  to  the  Father, 
so  that  we  have  for  His  sake  the  forgiveness  of  sins  "  ;  and  again  : 
"  We  must  believe  the  fruit  of  the  resurrection — what  we  have 
thereby  received,  namely,  forgiveness  and  remission  of  all  sins — 
that  Christ  has  passed  through  death  (/.  e.,  evidently,  suffering 
and  victorious),  and  has  thereby  overcome  sin  and  death,  yea, 
everything  that  can  harm  us,"  etc.*     Thus  the  resurrection  is  a  l/^ 
chief  article  of  faith.     It  and  the  ascension  are  alone  our  com-  u 

lErl.  Ed.,  xii,  118;  li,  137. 

'Ibid.,  iv,  29,  31  ;  iii,  303  ;  vii,  265  ;  xiv,  155. 

'E.  g.,  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  191,  ■'Ibid.,  xii,  118,  174. 


412  THE    THEOLOGY    OK    LUTHER. 

fort,  life,  eternal  happiness,  righteousness  and  our  all.     "  Christ  ^ 
arisen  [resuscitd/its)  is  our  righteousness  and  our  victory."  ' 

Bui  tohat  is,  according  to  this,  in  Luther' s  teaching,  the  relation 
of  this  entire  process  of  conquest  to  the  satisfaction  rendered  by 
Chrisfs  obedience  and  suffering?  It  maybe  asked  whether  the 
work  of  our  salvation  must  not  be  regarded  as  already  really 
completed  by  the  satisfaction  thus  rendered,  in  so  far  as  it  was 
to  be  objectively,  and  once  for  all,  accomplished.  We  might  be 
inclined  to  find  the  significance  of  the  following  events  only  in 
the  facts,  that  the  resurrection  is,  in  one  view,^  an  actual  declara-  ^ 
tion  ■■'  and  confirmation  of  the  divine  Sonship,  of  the  innocence  *■' 
of  the  crucified  Saviour,  and  of  the  acceptance  by  God  of  the  v' 
satisfaction  which  He  had  rendered,  and,  still  further,  as  the/ 
means  of  ushering  Christ  into  the  sphere  of  those  active  efforts 
which  He  could  not  until  afterwards  exert  upon  us  through  His 
Spirit,  and  by  which  alone  He  could  afford  to  separate  individ- 
uals the  enjoyment  of  that  which  He  had  already  fully  obtained 
by  means  of  the  satisfaction  rendered.  But  we  would  utterly 
destroy  the  peculiar  character  of  Luther's  view  and  of  his  teach- 
ing were  we  to  attempt  to  introduce  into  it  such  a  discrimination 
of  the  combined  elements.  He  himself  evidently  regards  the 
activity,  labors  and  miracles  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  contrast  with 
the  hostile  forces,  as  continuous  until  the  resurrection,  whereupon 
then,  from  the  victory  here  completely  won,  proceeds  the  further 
operation  of  the  exalted  Saviour  upon  our  own  souls.  We  must 
not,  on  account  of  the  figurative  drapery  of  his  speech,  transform 
this  thought  into  one  quite  different,  but  may  rather  recall  what 
has  been  already  remarked  in  regard  to  his  figurative  language, 
and  the  similar  cautions  which  he  has  himself  given. 

The  result  of  the  Saviour's  victorious  struggle  is,  then.  His  own 
victorious  passage  through  His  death  to  celestial  life,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  the  vanquishment  of  the  opposing  forces  in  general — 
not  only  for*  Himself,  but  also  for  the  human  race.  It  was  the 
deliberate  aim  of  Luther  to  embrace  and  combine  these  two 
achievements  directly  in  one  view.  None  the  less  must  we,  in 
attempting  to  follow  his  guidance,  ever  remember  that  he  would 
have  us  conceive  and  represent  in  inseparable  unity  that  which 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  174;  li,  I37sq.;  iii,  306;  xii,S8sq.  Comm.  adGal.,  i,  37; 
iii,  150. 

2Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvii,  117. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  4X3 

Christ  has  accomplished  for  us  by  the  entire  mediatorial  process. 
Primarily,  indeed,  the  main  thing  is,  for  him,  the  canceling  of 
guilt,  or  "  reconciliation  of  God,"  and,  as  the  basis  for  this,  the 
satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ.  But  the  same  mediatorial  pro- 
cess, inseparable  in  itself,  is  conceived  as  directly  involving  further 
for  humanity  the  real  power  for  the  subjective  unburdening  of 
the  guilty  conscience,  for  the  complete  appropriation  of  salvation 
by  men,  for  the  continuous  conquest  of  sin  and  Satan  also  by  the 
adherents  of  the  victorious  Saviour;  and  it  is  only  by  virtue  of 
this  connection  that  we  see  the  actual  achievement  of  that  which 
is  the  primary  aim  of  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ,  /.  e., 
reconciliation.  Luther  represents  the  resurrection  as  contributing 
also  CO  this  result.  If  we  insist  upon  any  further  analysis,  defini- 
tion, or  gradation  of  the  separate  elements,  we  demand  precisely 
that  which  Luther  does  not,  and  did  not  design  to,  furnish. 

If  we  now  seek  to  discover  the  distinguishitig  peailiarity  of 
Luther'' s  general  doctrine  of  the  7vork  of  Christ  in  the  interest  of 
human  salvation,  we  shall  find  it  to  lie  partly  in  the  profound  way 
in  which  he  conceives  the  separate  elements  of  the  subject,  and, 
very  especially,  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  and  in  the  variety  of  form 
in  which  he  applies  the  total  activity  and  endurance,  deportment 
and  life,  of  Jesus — a  peculiarity  which  may  very  easily  be  noted 
by  a  comparison  of  his  theory  with  that  of  his  scholastic  prede- 
cessors ; '  but,  none  the  less,  also  in  the  apprehension  and  com- 
bination of  the  separate  elements  in  their  most  immediate  unity, 
under  mystical  and  symbolical  forms  of  conception  and  repre- 
sentation. We  may  add,  further,  that  Luther  himself,  in  the 
course  of  advancing  years,  never  aimed  at  a  further  separation  of 
the  elements  thus  embraced,  nor  at  minute  abstract  definitions — 
a  fact  which  is  particularly  noticeable  in  reference  to  the  conquest 
achieved  by  Christ  and  its  relation  to  His  work  of  satisfaction. 
On  the  contrary,  he  had  already,  in  that  portion  of  the  Church 
Pastils  which  appeared  in  15  21,"  presented  the  doctrine  of  the 
satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ  as  definitely  as  at  any  later  period  ; 
and,  in  fact,  all  his  more  precise  discussions  of  this  aspect  of 
Christ's  work  are  found  already  in  the  Church  Postils.  In  his 
later  writings,  on  the  other  hand,  whilst  still  speaking,  indeed, 

I  Cf.  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  Bk.  III.,  Part  I. 
^Erl.  Ed.,  vii. 


414       •         1HE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

of  "  satisfaction  "  and  "  payment  "  in  connection  with  the  com- 
prehensive conception  of  "  overcoming,"  he  does  not  attempt  to 
develop  the  ideas  at  any  length.  In  the  extended  portrayal  of  the 
mediatorial  work  in  the  Commentary  upon  Galatians,  this  feature 
does  not  receive  special  consideration  (although  by  no  means 
forgotten),'  but  the  controlling  idea  is  the  sublime  image  of  the 
conflict  of  Jesus  against  all  the  forces  hostile  to  His  general  work 
of  salvation^  which  are,  in  the  issue,  overcome  and  abolished  on 
account  of  the  injustice  which  they  have  perpetrated  upon  Him, 
and  by  the  force  of  His  holiness,  might  and  divinity. 

For  the  entire,  once-for-all  completed  work  of  Christ,  Luther 
employs  the  traditional  term,  "  merit"  {I'erdicnen^,  especially  in 
contrast  with  the  supposed  merits  of  men  themselves.  We  are 
to  believe,  he  says,  "  that  Christ  performed  superabundantly 
works  and  merits  both  fitting  and  worthy  {^congiiii  et  condigni). 
This  *'  meriting  "  falls  also,  like  the  "  paying  "  and  "  satisfying," 
under  the  general  conception  of  a  judicial  transaction,  and  is 
accomplished  primarily  by  means  of  the  satisfaction  rendered  in 
suffering  and  obedience.  Forgiveness  is  said  to  be  "  earned 
from  "  (^abvcnUeni)  God.  But  this  "  merit  "  itself  is  also  par- 
ticularly set  forth  as  based  upon  the  entire  mediatorial  process, 
including  the  resurrection.  "  It  behooved  Christ  (Lk.  xxiv.  46) 
to  suffer  and  to  rise  the  third  day  :  herein  lies  His  merit  "  (that 
upon  the  basis  of  which  follows,  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
the  distribution  of  His  merit).  Instead  of  the  word  "  zr;v//>;/^;/ " 
(merit,  or  earn),  Futher  employs  frequently,  as  synonymous,  the 
more  general  terms,  "  erwerben  "  (work  out,  gain)  and  "  crlaugen  " 
(obtain).  And,  just  as  he  declares  that  grace,  or  the  free  gift 
(Rom.  v.  15),  has  been  earned  (merited)  for  us  by  Christ,  so 
has  he  also  employed  the  term,  "  meritiim  ",  to  describe  directly 
the  benefit  itself  which  has  been  secured  for  us  by  Christ  and 
which  rests  in  Him,  and  this,  conceived  not  only  as  the  grace  of 
forgiveness,  but,  at  the  same  time  also,  as  inwardly  sanctifying 
grace.  "  The  merits  of  Christ  are  spirit  and  life,  are  grace  and 
truth — which  make  him  who  follows  better  in  spirit  and  holier" 
(in  contrast  with  indulgences).'' 

'Erl.  Ed.,  i,  195. 

2Comm.  ad  Gal.,  195,  135.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  172.  Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  385;  xi, 
290;  XXX,  184.  Jena,  ii,  426;  iii,  233  b;  i,  308  h  (Loscher,  iii,  775  sq  ) 
Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  269  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  415 

We  have  now  noted  the  chief  particulars  in  Luther's  doctrine 
concerning  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ.  A  few  remarks  must 
yet  be  added  upon  some  special  points  embraced  in  the  general 
presentation  of  the  subject. 

In  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Intervention  of  Christ, 
with  His  mediatorial  work,  in  our  stead,  the  question  may  arise, 
how  Luther  explains  the  possibility  of  such  an  intervention  of  one 
person  in  behalf  of  others.  This  is  a  point  which  he  never 
attempts  to  discuss  exhaustively.  He  simply  announces  it  as  a 
fact,  with  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  divine  appointment, 
and  with  a  general  reference  to  the  fellowship  of  Christ  with  us 
by  virtue  of  His  human  nature  and  the  capacity  of  His  body  for 
suffering.  Yet  we  dare  not  here  fail  to  observe  how  Luther 
represents,  as  parallel  with  what  Christ  has  done  and  does  for  us 
that  which  His  followers  are  to  do  for  one  another  and,  also,  in 
the  communion  of  saints,  to  receive  from  one  another.  He  at 
first  even  tolerated,  for  this  idea,  the  term,  "merits"  (  Verdienste) . 
He  then  made  use  of  the  expression,  that  believers  also  should 
"  set  their  righteousness  before  God  in  behalf  of  their  neighbor." 
Even  at  a  later  period,  he  insists  that  the  Christian  should  care 
for  his  neighbor  as  Christ  cared  for  hi/n  ;  should  place  at  his 
neighbor's  disposal  the  fulness  of  blessings  which  he  has  himself 
received  from  Christ,  and  freely  offer  himself  with  these  to  the 
service  of  his  neighbor ;  should  serve  the  latter  by  his  piety,  and 
bear  his  sins  and  failings,  just  as  he  himself  enjoys  the  benefit  of 
Christ's  righteousness  ;  and  should  himself,  likewise,  find  comfort 
in  the  fellowship  of  suffering  and  of  blessings  with  all  other  saints.' 

We  must  here,  indeed,  carefully  observe  the  essential  difference 
between  the  cases  thus  compared.^  There  is,  even  in  the  first 
instance,  no  thought  here  of  such  merit  as  that  of  Christ,  nor, 
indeed,  of  merit  at  all  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  :  and  it 
afterwards  becomes  perfectly  clear  that  only  such  an  intervention 
of  one  person  in  behalf  of  others  is  meant  as  is  exemplified  in 
intercessory  prayer,  or  in  the  labor  of  one  person  for  the  spiritual 
welfare  of  others.  At  all  events,  this  burden-bearing  for  others 
is  not  thought  of  as  in  itself  vicariously  taking  away  guilt.     But 

1  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  271,  343  sq.,  416  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  227  ;  x,  19 ;  xi,  167, 
190  ;  1,  224  sqq.,  250. 

2  Cf.  already  Vol.,  I.,  p.  416  sq. 


4l6  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

even  thus,  the  idea  of  a  fellowship  and  "  assumption,"  as  pre- ' 
sented  in  the  parallel  in  question,  remains  significant.  Worthy 
of  note,  too,  are  the  declarations  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the 
Sytnpathy  of  Christ,  found  in  his  comments  upon  Isa.  liii.  4,  com- 
pared with  Matt.  viii.  17.'  Matthew,  says  he,  applies  the  words, 
not  to  the  literal  sufferings  of  Christ,  nor  to  His  agony  on  the 
cross,  but  to  His  sympathy  with  our  weakness  as  constantly 
manifested  throughout  His  whole  life ;  but,  "  although  that  is 
compassion  [compassio),  and  not  actual  suffering  (/(7j-j7'6'),  never- 
theless that  covipassion  was  without  doubt  a  great  part,  if  not  the 
7vhole,  of  the  suffering  of  Christ.'"  He  then  proceeds  to  say,  that 
Christ  thus  declares  in  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  15  :  "I  am  poor,  and  in  toils 
from  my  youth  "  (the  same  passage  which  he  elsewhere  '  applies 
to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  general)  ;  that  the  pains  which  the 
devil  inflicts  upon  us  were  a  cross  to  Him  constantly,  by  day 
and  by  night  ;  ^  that  we  may  see  illustrations  of  this  in  His 
compassion  for  the  suffering  (Mk.  vi.  34),  in  the  extreme  emo- 
tion of  His  pity  (Mk.  iii.  21),  and  in  His  compassion  shown 
toward  Judas  at  the  last  supper ;  that  He  pities  us  because  He 
sees  us  so  terribly  oppressed  by  the  devil ;  that  these  pains  were 
borne  by  Him  until  He  hung  upon  the  cross,  where,  as  is  declared 
in  Heb.  v.  7,  He  offered  up  prayers  with  tears,  /'.  e.,  in  His 
"  Father,  forgive  them,"  etc. ;  that  He  here  heaved  the  deepest 
sigh,  at  which  heaven  and  earth  trembled.  Even  among  the 
heathen,  he  declares,  the  emotion  of  pity  is  very  strong ;  and  in 
the  holy  Son  of  God  was  found  this  emotion  in  its  perfection,  as 
the  intensest  pity.  Luther  thus  finds,  even  to  the  very  culmi- 
nating point  of  the  Saviour's  sufferings,  as  an  essential  element, 
and  even  as  the  chief  element,  a  feeling  of  sympathy  for  us 
analogous  to  our  human  sympathy  for  one  another.  But  we  must 
content  ourselves  with  having  thus  briefly  called  attention  to  this 
thought.  We  cannot  stop  to  trace  it  in  the  leading  passages 
previously  quoted  in  connection  with  the  general  idea  that  Christ 
has  suffered  for  us. 

Our  review  of  the  work  of  Christ  in  our  behalf  has  led  us 
through  the  entire  life  of  the  God-man  on  earth,  from  His  birth 
to  His  ascension.     We  must  yet    consider  more   carefully   the  V 

•  Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  482  sqq.  *  Supra,  p.  396. 

3  Cf.  the  "  terrors  "  spoken  of,  supra,  p.  396. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  417 

significance  of  His  Descent  into  Hell.  Luther  always  regards  Ps. 
xvi.  10,  in  connection  with  Acts  ii.  24,  27,  as  furnishing  the 
main  scriptural  support  of  the  doctrine.  There  is  some  waver-  ■ 
ing,  however,  in  his  conception  of  the  event.  He  was  in  doubt 
whether  Christ  descended  in  order,  after  having  already  endured 
the  pangs  of  hell  upon  the  cross,  and  having  thus  been  in  hell, 
to  endure  these  pangs  still  further  during  a  local  stay  in  the 
abode  of  the  lost,  or  whether  He  descended  merely  in  order  to 
follow  up  the  victory  which  He  had  already  gained  upon  the 
cross  to  its  glorious  consummation  in  His  resurrection.  The 
latter  interpretation  occurs  already  in  his  First  Exposition  of  the 
Psalms,  if  we  are  to  accept  as  a  part  of  his  original  annotations 
the  comments  upon  Ps.  Ivii.  4  (Ivi.  5)  :  "  The  soul  of  Jesus  was,  ^ 
after  His  death,  among  the  devils — and  announced  to  them  the 
destruction  of  their  kingdom."  '  It  is  given  the  decided  prefer- 
ence, although  the  other  interpretation  is  not  excluded,  in  the 
'■^  Short  Form  of  the  Ten  Commandments,'''  etc.  (A.  D.  1520)  :^ 
"  Christ  descended  *  *  *  to  take  captive  the  devil  and  all  ^ 
his  power  *  *  *  and  (has)  delivered  me  from  the  pain  of 
hell."  The  expression  in  De  libertate  Christiana,  i.  e.,  that  Christ 
died  and  descended  into  hell  in  order  to  overcome  all  things,^ 
is  not  decisive.  The  language  employed  in  the  Sermon  of  A.  D. 
I5ig,^  i.  e.,  that  Christ  went  into  hell  and  was  forsaken  of  God, 
according  to  Matt,  xxvii.  46,  has  no  relation  to  the  present 
question,  smce  it  refers  only  to  the  inner  sufferings  of  Christ 
upon  the  cross,^  and  not  to  the  subsequent  descent  into  hell.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  the  Exposition  of  Psalm  xvi.,  which  appeared 
in  15 2 1,*  Luther  takes  the  other  view,  declaring  that  the  soul  of 
Christ  really  descended  after  His  death  "  «^  inferos''  ;  that  it 
has,  indeed,  not  been  very  clearly  shown  precisely  what  was 
involved  in  this ;  but  that  it  appears,  however,  to  follow  from 
the  "  loosing  of  the  pains  ",  spoken  of  in  Acts  ii.  24,  that,  as  Christ 
had  died  in  the  greatest  pain,  so  He  was  there,  too,  called  upon 
to  endure  pains,  in  order  to  overcome  all  things.  In  the  Com- 
mentary upon   yonah,  however,  of  A.  D.  1526,'  he  understands 

1  Walch,  ix,  1878.  ^  Erl.  Ed,,  xxii,  18. 

3  Jena,  i,  466  (Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  414).  *  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  262. 

5  Cf.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  245.  «  Ibid.,  xv,  378  sq.   ^ 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xli,  378  sq. 
27 


4lS  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  "  pains  "  of  Acts  ii.  24  as  being  those  which  Jesus  experi- 
enced at  His  death,  inasmuch  as  he  does  not  now  conceive  of 
hell  as  being  a  separate  place  before  the  Day  of  Judgment,  but 
regards  "  Sheol  "  as  indicating  merely,  in  general,  the  final  distress 
and  agony  of  the  dying.  In  the  Enari-atio  upon  Ps.  xvi.  (A.  I). 
1530),  he  sees  in  it,  "  Everything  which  tliere  is  in  the  place  to 
which  we  depart  after  life,  whether  it  be  the  sepulchre  or  some- 
thing else,"  and  upon  this  bases  the  article  of  the  Descensus, 
making  no  mention  of  pains,  but  speaking  only  of  the  inability  of 
hell  and  the  grave  to  retain  Christ,  and  of  His  victory  over  death 
and  the  devil.  He  afterwards,  in  a  Second  Exposition  of  the 
Psalm,  repeats  the  statement,  that  the  true  hell  of  fire  had  as 
5'et  no  existence,  and  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  hell  to  which 
Christ  went  was  nothing  else  than  the  grave  of  the  soul,  although 
we  cannot  comprehend  such  things  in  our  human  thoughts.  He 
yet  expresses  his  approval  of  the  pictures  and  hymns  of  the 
Fathers,  setting  forth  Christ's  descent  into  hell  and  deliverance 
from  it,  since  we  cannot  portray  it  otherwise  than  by  such  figura- 
tive representations ;  but  he  will  hear  nothing  of  questions  con- 
cerning a  real  or  efficacious  {scci/ndinn  subs  tan  fiam  vel  efficaciam) 
descent.'  We  hear  no  more,  accordingly,  of  further  sufferings 
endured  by  Christ  after  His  death.  In  a  Seinnon  of  A.  D.  1532, 
vs\\\\t  House  Pos tils ^  2Ci\di  also  in  the  Torgau  Sermon  of  A.  D. 
1533^  referring  to  the  ancient  hymns  and  paintings  in  which 
Christ  appears  with  a  banner  in  His  hand,  bursting  the  bars  of 
hell,  he  places  the  significance  of  the  Descensus  most  distinctly  in 
the  fact,  that  the  devil  has  now  no  power  over  Christ  and  His 
followers,  but  that  Christ,  upon  the  contrary,  has  broken  into 
hell,  overcome  the  devil  and  delivered  those  who  were  enslaved 
by  him.  He  repeats  the  statement,  that  we  cannot  speak  of  this 
article  without  figures  of  speech,  in  literal  and  precise  language. 
He  declares  also  expressly  that  Christ  descended  to  hell  as  true 
God  and  man,  with  body  and  soul  undivided,  thus  in  this  event, 
as  always,  representing  the  entire  one  person  as  the  agent.  He 
then  again  warns  against  further  and  vain  questionings.  Still 
further,  in  the  Exposition  of  Gen.  xlii.,*  written  probably  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  year  1544,^  he  appears  unwilling  to  assert 

^  Op.  Ex.,  xvii,  124  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxviii,  143  sqq. 
^  Erl.  EH.,  iii,  280  sqq.  *  Ibid.,  xx,  165  sqq. 

*Cf.  Briefe,  v,  714.  &0p.  Ex.,  x,  219. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  419 

even  so  much  as  in  the  passage  just  cited,  declaring :  "  What 
the  soul  did  in  hell — whether  it  spoiled  the  powers  and  liberated 
those  there  imprisoned — it  avails  not  to  ask  and  curiously  pry 
into."  It  is  enough  for  him  to  know  that  the  saints  are  certainly 
delivered  forever  from  the  power  of  hell.  He  asserts  expressly  \y 
that  the  punishments  of  Gehenna,  which  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  Sheol,  were  endured  by  Christ  while  still  in  the  flesh.' 

Whilst  the  passages  of  Scripture  above  cited  are  positively 
interpreted  by  Luther  as  referring  to  an  event  subsequent  to  the 
death  of  Jesus,  lying,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  beyond 
the  sphere  of  our  comprehension,  the  meaning  of  the  language 
employed  in  i  Pet.  iii.  i8  sqq.  and  iv.  6  is  quite  obscure  to  him. 
In  his  exposition  of  this  epistle  in  A.  D.  1523,  he  is  inclined  to 
apply  this  "  strange  text  and  dark  verse  "to  the  preaching  of  the 
divine  Word,  which  is,  through  His  messengers  and  His  Spirit, 
carried  out  from  the  ascended  Saviour  to  the  souls  of  men  living 
upon  earth  and  held  in  bondage  by  the  devil,  who  are  like  the 
unbelievers  of  Noah's  time,  or  among  whom  the  latter  are  to  be 
classed.^  But  in  a  manuscript  without  date,  he  candidly  confesses 
his  inability  to  discover  the  meaning  of  the  passage.^  When 
Melanchthon,  in  1531,  reported  to  Spalatin  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  Bugenhagen,  the  passage  was  to  be  interpreted  of  the  heathen, 
to  whom  the  Gospel  was  preached  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
and  that  the  latter  had  almost  convinced  Luther  (who  did, 
indeed,  entertain  this  view  in  1523)  of  the  correctness  of  his 
opinion,  Luther  himself  wrote  upon  the  margin  of  Melanchthon's 
letter  the  brief  annotation  :  "  Non  est  veriaii.''  *  We  afterwards 
find  him,  in  the  Commentary  iipon  Genesis  vii.^  pursuing  an 
entirely  different  line  of  interpretation,  maintaining  that  "  the 
deceased  Christ  preached  to  an  unbelieving  world  which  had  been 
snatched  away  in  the  divine  judgment  of  the  Flood,  in  order  still 
to  make  out  of  it  a  new  and  believing  world  " — that  is,  certainly, 
not  to  the  wicked  despisers  of  the  Word  and  tyrants,  but  to 
children  and  others,  who,  in  their  simplicity,  were  not  able  to 
believe  in  the  coming  of  the  terrible  judgment  threatened  by 
Noah,  but  looked  for  a  further  exhibition  of  the  patience  of  God." 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  398  sq.  "■'  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  458  sqq. 

*Lutherbriefe,  Seidemann,  p.  79.  *  Briefe,  vi,   130. 

*0p.  Ex.,  ii,  221  sqq.  ;  written  probably  in  1537;  published  in  1544. 
*Cf.    the    pnssage    i    Pet.,   iii,   20   in   the   Vulgnte :    qui    increduli  fuerant, 
quando  expectabant,  Dei  patientiam,  etc. 


420  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Peter,  thinks  Luther,  was  led  to  this  declaration,  which  sounds 
almost  like  the  unauthorized  utterance  of  an  enthusiast,  by 
the  thought  of  the  terrible  nature  of  the  divine  wrath  which 
once  swept  away  indiscriminately  so  many  persons ;  and  he 
is  himself,  he  declares,  inclined  by  similar  reflections  to  accept 
the  revelation  which  is,  upon  this  theory,  made  by  the  apostle 
in  regard  to  those  thus  swept  away.  He  adds  the  remark, 
that  we  may  not  unfitly  interpret  the  article  upon  the  De- 
scensus in  the  Creed  as  referring  to  this  event.  He  yet,  indeed, 
however  strongly  he  is  inclined  to  this  interpretation,  not  only 
upon  exegetical  grounds  but  also  by  dogmatic  interest,  does  not 
venture  to  express  any  positive  opinion.  But  he  continues  to 
lean  toward  this  view.  In  precisely  the  same  way,  but  yet  more 
decidedly,  he  in  1545  declares:^  Peter  says  clearly  "that 
Christ  appeared  not  only  to  the  deceased  fathers,  some  of  whom 
He  without  doubt,  when  He  arose,  awakened  with  Himself 
to  eternal  life,  but  also  preached  to  some  who  in  the  time 
of  Noah  did  not  believe,  and  who  looked  for  the  patience  of 
God,"  /.  e.,  who  hoped  that  God  would  not  deal  so  harshly 
with  all  flesh  (such  unbelievers  are  therefore  meant  as  those 
spoken  of  in  the  comment  upon  Gen.  vii.),  in  order  that  they 
might  7'ealize  that  their  sins  tvere  pardoned  through  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ.  To  this,  he  again  says,  the  article  of  the  Descensus 
in  the  Creed  is  to  be  applied.  That  which  Luther  deduced  from 
Ps.  xvi.  and  Acts  ii.  27  upon  this  subject  must,  therefore,  be  now 
supplemented  by  that  which  he  afterwards  found  in  i  Pet.  iii. 
18  sqq.  This  harmonizes,  moreover,  very  easily  with  the  con- 
ception of  Christ  as,  through  His  descent  to  hell,  overcoming  the 
devil  and  setting  his  captives  free.  But,  although  the  view  of 
Luther,  so  far  as  he  is  led  to  express  himself,  remains  such  as  we 
have  found  it  in  the  passages  last  cited,  yet  he  still  prefers  '■'  to 
avoid  altogether  more  definite  deliverances  upon  the  subject. 

'Under  Hos.  vi.  2.  Jena,  iv,  638:  How  greatly  dogmatic  bias  may  for 
Lutherans  becloud  the  vision  of  the  evident  meaning  of  Luther,  is  manifest, 
e.  g.,  from  the  misconception  of  it  even  by  the  acute  Seckendorf.,  iiist. 
Luth.,  Lib.  IIL,  \  127.  I  refrain  from  expressly  exposing  the  lack  of  infor- 
mation in  regard  to  Luther's  real  opinion  and  teaching  shown  by  modern 
writers.     Enough  has  been  said. 

^  Cf.  what  has  been  said  above  in  connection  with  Gen.  xlii.  Op.  Ex.,  x, 
219. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  42  1 

We  have  not  specifically  discussed  the  significance  of  the  Ascen- 
sion of  Christ  to  Heaven.  It  is,  however,  directly  associated,  in 
Luther's  view,  with  that  of  the  resurrection,  as  has  been  manifest 
in  the  preceding  discussion.  What  Christ,  as  the  ascended 
Lord,  actually  effects,  we  have  already  seen  fully  summarized  in 
a  passage  above  cited  ' — the  governing  of  heaven  and  earth,  and, 
especially,  presiding  over  and  in  the  Church  through  His  Spirit 
and  Word — and  the  continuous  mediatorial  intercession  for 
believers  in  the  presence  of  the  Father.  Luther  regards  the 
latter  as  continuous,  with  special  reference  to  the  continuance  of 
sin  in  the  regenerate,''  who  are  not  to  seek  grace  for  even  their 
yet  remaining  sins  in  any  effort  of  their  own  ;  but  he  presents  this 
thought  in  such  a  way  that,  even  for  the  continuous  forgiveness 
thus  interceded  for,  the  once-consummated,  superabundant  merit 
of  Christ  remains  the  permanent  basis.  The  further  discussion 
of  the  presiding  presence  of  Christ  within  the  congregation  of  His 
followers  will  find  its  appropriate  place  under  the  doctrine  of  the 
impartation  of  salvation,  and,  particularly,  under  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church. 


We  have  now,  with  Luther,  presented  in  detail  the  work  of 
Christ  in  which  He  has  instituted  redemption — the  work  which 
was  present  to  the  view  of  the  eternal  God  from  all  eternity,  and 
upon  which,  therefore,  was  based  all  forgiveness  of  sins  from  the 
days  of  Adam.  In  doing  so  we  have  found  the  entire  life  and 
activity  of  Christ  standing  in  intimate  relation  with  this.  His 
mediatorial  work. 

The  significance  of  the  Teaching  which  is  so  marked  a  feature 
of  His  ministry  for  us  has  thus  far  not  claimed  our  special  atten- 
tion, or,  rather,  has  come  into  view  merely  as  one  element  in 
His  fulfilment  of  the  divine  will  in  love  toward  us. 

This  phase  of  the  Saviour's  active  work  must  now,  however, 
in  view  of  its  relation  to  the  remaining  doctrines  in  the  theo- 
logical system  of  Luther,  be  accorded  its  rightful  and  exceedingly 
significant  position.  The  salvation,  provided  as  we  have  seen, 
has,  from  the  very  beginning,  been  imparted  only  through  the 
Word  addressed  to  the  individual,  in  which  divine  truth,  and 
especially  the  gracious  will  of  God  and  the  work  of  His  grace, 

'  Erl.  Ed  ,  xii,  ilS;  supra,  p.  411.  ^  Vid.,  1.  c. 


4-'::  IHE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

have  been  revealed  to  the  consciousness  and  the  understanding 
for  believing  acceptance.     And  this  revelation  itself  now  attains  i- 
its  consummation  in  the  Son  of  God  always  through  His  Word. 
Everything  which  He  has  heard  from   the  Father  He  has  pro-  \ 
claimed,  so   that   even   the   Spirit  can  and  is  to  teach  nothing 
different  or  new.'     Speaking  of  that  which  He  has  Himself  seen, . 
He  testifies  what  is  the  disposition  of  the  Father,  and  that  it  is 
the  will  of  the  Father  to  save  men  through  Him,  the  Mediator. 
It  is  here,  in  the  Son,  that  we  first  rightly  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Father,  throbbing  with  pure,  fathomless  love.   •  In  the  Son  Him- 
self, in  the  complete  revelation  of  His  own  person,  we  become 
acquainted  with  the  entire  Trinity.     As  He,  in  His  Word  and  ^' 
work,  presents  to  us  both  Himself  and  the  Father,  He  is  for  us 
the  true  Epistle  fiom  on  high,  the  golden  Book.-'     He  also,  in  ' 
connection  with  this  revelation,  gives  commandments  and  teaches 
the  Law.     This  is  not,  however,  His  own  peculiar  office,  but  only 
an  incident  of  His  mission.     He  is  essentially  a  preacher  of  life, 
grace   and    righteousness.''     He   thus    preaches,    finally,    in    His . 
present  state  of   exaltation,   through  His  Spirit,  to  the  souls  of 
men,   through  the  medium  of  His  Word  upon  the  lips  of  His 
heralds.     It   is  precisely  through   the  Word   thus  preached   that  \, 
He  gathers  the  Christian  Church,  which  is  to  enjoy  the  benefit 
of  His  redemption.* 

There  have  thus  been  presented  to  us,  in  the  writings  of 
Luther,  all  the  features  embraced  in  our  Saviour's  administration 
of  His  three-fold  office  as  prophet,  priest  and  king. 

He  is  a  High  Priest,  since  He,  by  His  great  redemptive  work,  ^ 
appears  for  us  before  the  Father,  presents  Himself  as  a  sacrifice, 
and  pleads  for  us.  It  is  not  needful  for  us  here  to  cite  particular 
examples  from  the  great  multitude  of  passages  in  which  Luther 
employs  the  above  title  to  indicate  this  part  of  the  work  of 
Christ.  He  employed  this  doctrine,  as  we  have  seen,  in  opposing 
the  human  priesthood  taught  by  the  Romish  Church,  and  then 
advanced  to  the  advocacy  of  the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  who 
are  now  to  bring  their  thank-offerings  through  Christ,  the  Recon- 
ciler and  Mediator,  to  God. 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  72;  cf.    supra,  p.  222. 

*  Ibid.,  xlvii,  35  sq.,  142  sq.,  357,   345  ;   xviii,  207. 

'  Comm.  ad   Gal.,  ii,  156.     Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  223.     Op.  Ex.,  xiii,  243. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  459  sq. ;  xii,  118. 


S^■STEMA■nC    REVIEW.  423 

Christ  is,  further,  Lord  and  King,  sitting  at  the  right  hand  oft-' 
God,  ruling  over  heaven  and  earth,  men  and  angels,  and  every- 
thing which  is  subject   to  the  control  of  God.     His  is  divine  ^' 
power.     But  Luther  commonly,  when  speaking  of  Christ's  king-  ^ 
dom,  or  dominion,  understands  especially  His  spiritual  kingdom 
in  the  Church,  which  holds  sway  over  the  hearts  and  consciences 
of  men — the  kingdom  of  grace,  in  which  Christ,  the  King,  Him- 
self grants  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  righteousness,  His  Spirit  and 
life ;  in  which  He,  as  the  Head,  infuses  into  the  members  of  His 
spiritual  body  all  life,  power  of  perception,  and  impulse  to  activity ; 
and  over  whose  subjects  He,  as  Lord,  Himself  bears  sway.     To  ^ 
this  dominion  Luther  then  ascribes  also  that  agency  of  Christ,  in 
the  exercise  of  His  general  divine  power,  by  which  He,  as  the 
Almighty,  protects  and  gives  prosperity  to  His  Church  in  every 
respect,  even  in  the  face  of  the  oppositions  of  the  outward  world 
and  all  calamities  and  enemies.     But,  says  he,  this  kingdom,  by  v 
which  Christ  rules  in  the  present  life,  is  concealed  by  a  veil  from 
our  view.     We  do  not  see  Him,  but  must  believe.     Out  of  His  '- 
kingdom,  however,  which  is  a  kingdom  of  the  Word  and  faith, 
shall  arise  another,  in  which  we  shall  behold  the  Father  and 
Christ,  as  do  the  angels  now  (Matt,  xviii.  lo).     This  shall  come  ^ 
to  pass  when,  according  to  i  Cor.  xv.  25-28,  all  enemies  shall 
have  been  put  under  the  feet  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  He  shall 
then  give  over  the  kingdom  to  the  Father.     Luther  thus  discrimi- 
nates between   the  former  kingdom,  in  which  the  Son  is,  in  a 
special  sense,  the  King,  and  shall  be  so  while  this  world  endures — 
in  which  He,  without  exclusion  of   the   Father  and   the   Spirit, 
"bears  the  name,  and  rules  here   below  by  His  Gospel" — and 
that  other  kingdom  which,  for  us,  still  lies  in  the  future.     Both 
are,  however,  as  he  adds,  essentially  one.     We  have  already  in 
the  earthly  kingdom  the  essential  blessings  of  the  kingdom  yet  to 
come ;  we  are  already  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven — yea,  in  heaven 
itself.     There  remains  yet  only  the  veil  drawn  before  our  eyes 
to  conceal  its  glory.' 

The  connection  of  this  royal  dominion  with  the  priestly  func- 
tions of  Christ's  ofifice  is  easily  seen.  The  kingdom  is  one  whose 
very  chief  feature  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  None  th^  less, 
however,  is  it  promoted  by  the  agency  of  the  Word,  /.  e.,  through 

'  Ell.  Ed.,  xl,  45-57;  xiv,  120,  179  sq. ;  vi,  58;  xvii,  224  sqq 


424  THE    IHEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  prophetic  office.  Just  this  is  an  essential  characteristic  of 
this  kingdom,  that  Christ  was  not  to  be  a  secular  king  with 
swords  and  martial  array,  but  was  to  come  as  a  preacher  and 
teacher.* 

It  is  particularly  under  the  suggestion  of  Deut.  xv.  15,  18,  that 
Luther  describes  Christ  as  a  Prophet.  He  contrasts  with  Moses 
the  other  prophet  foretold  by  the  great  lawgiver,  representing 
him  as  a  preacher  of  life  and  grace,  with  whose  advent  were  to 
be  ushered  in  a  new  priesthood,  a  new  kingdom,  a  new  mode  of 
divine  worship.^ 

Luther  has,  however,  left  us  no  special  systematic  presentation 
of  the  three  distinct  offices  of  Christ  with  the  peculiar  features 
distinctive  of  each. 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  97;   xlvii,  142  sq. ;    xlv,  347  sq.  * 

*0p.  Ex.,  xiii,  240  sqq. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE    APPROPRIATION    OF  SALVATION  BY  FAITH,  AND  THE 
N£w    life    of    THE    BELIEVER. 

I.   The  Nature  of  yustifying  Faith. 

TRUST    IN    THE    MERCY    OF     GOD EXPLICIT     VS.     IMPLICIT GRASPING 

RATHER  THAN  LONGING CHRIST  FOR  US  AND  IN  US RELATION  TO 

INTELLECT,  SENSIBILITIES  AND  WILL AN  ELEMENT  OF  REPENTANCE 

A  GIFT  OF  GOD. 

Thou  hast  given  to  me  that  which  was  Thine."/  Thus,  accord- 
fhg  "to  Luther,  should  the  Christian  say  to  his  Saviour.  But  the 
hand  with  whch  we  are  to  take  the  heavenly  treasure  is  faith. 

The  Nature  of  Faith  we  have  found  described  by  Luther  as 
consisting  primarily,  according  to  Heb.  xi.  i,  in  a  directing  (of 
the  mind  and  heart)  upon  things  unseen.  With  this  was  com- 
bined the  idea  of  absolute  resignation,  of  withdrawal  from  all 
things  finite.  We  see  him  thus,  at  length,  conducted  to  his  pecul- 
iar and  permanent  evangelical  position  by  his  conception  of  faith. 
According  to  this,  he  held  the  unseen  object  upon  which  the 
latter  was  to  be  directed  to  be  essentially  the  forgiving  grace  of 
God  in  Christ ;  that  which  was  to  be  above  all  else  renounced, 
man's  own  righteousness ;  and  the  proper  attitude  of  the  soul 
toward  the  object  of  faith,  a  trustful  apprehension  (grasping). 
This  view  of  faith  was  revealed  already  in  the  writings  of  the 
Reformer  before  the  indulgence  controversy.  It  is  more  and 
more  positively  advocated  in  contrast  with  the  elements  peculiar 
to  the  pre-reformation  Mysticism,  as  appears  strikingly  in  the 
Freihcit  eines  Christe?imenschen.  Yet,  side  by  side  with  it,  we 
still  meet,  as,  for  example,  in  the  Christinas  Sermoii  of  A.  D. 
1322,  the  same  mystical  expressions  which  the  fanatical  sects 
employed  in  support  of  their  unevangelical  views.  The  heart, 
it  was  said,  must,  in  order  that  the  Christ-child  may  come  to  it, 
"stand   utterly   vacant"    {gar  ledig  gelassen    steJien),     It    dare 

(425  ) 


426  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

take  interest  in  nothing.  The  old  hide  must  be  laid  off.  Luther's 
view  gained  at  length  its  definite  and  clear  form  through  his  oppo- 
sition to  the  mysticism  of  such  men  as  Carlstadt  and  JMiinzer.^ 

Faith  is,  therefore,  a  living,  firm,  bold  [envagene :  ventured) 
trust  in  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God.  The  "  substance  "  (i'7rof7of/f) 
of  Heb.  xi.  i,  means  such  a  "sure  confidence,"  corresponding 
to  Dpn  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  i,  which  means  "assured"  {stahilitiis, 
certificatiis).  Faith  is  "  a  standing  fast  {Standfest)  of  the  heart, 
which  does  not  waver,  flounder,  nor  doubt,"  etc.  That  which  is 
to  be  hoped  for  (Heb.  xi.)  is  a  good  thing,  /.  e.,  the  mercy  and 
grace  of  God.  That  which  is  "  not  seen,"  is  that  which  we 
receive  from  Christ.  More  definitely  stated,  the  object  of  faith 
is  this  Saviour  bestowed  upon  us  by  the  grace  of  God,  the  true 
Son  of  the  Father,  His  death  and  resurrection  for  our  salvation, 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  through  Flim,  the  righteousness  and  salva- 
tion revealed  in  Him.  All  this  is  offered  to  us  in  the  divine 
Word  of  promise.  Faith  is  "  to  inwardly  approach  the  God  who 
promises  {assentiri Deo promittenti).'"  In  this  Word  of  promise, 
faith  has  God  Himself  and  Christ,  and  it  therefore  holds  fast  to 
the  very  Word.     It  "  clings  to  the  Word,  which  is  God  Himself."  '^ 

This  grace  and  promise  of  God  the  believer  must  always  con- 
fidently apply,  especially,  to  himself.  "  God  is  God  to  me,  speaks 
to  me,  remits  my  sins,"  etc.  Faith  is  a  heartfelt  confidence  in 
God  through  Christ,  that  the  sufferings,  death  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  belong  to  me.  This  distinguishes  true  faith  from  that  of 
the  devil  and  the  pope,  the  ''fides  acquisita  "  and  "fides  infusa  " 
of  the  sophists.  Thus,  the  article  upon  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
assumes  the  central  place  in  our  whole  system  of  faith.  "  If  the 
other  articles  are  to  become  part  of  our  experience  and  really 
affect  us,  they  must  do  so  /;/  t/iis  article,  i.  e.,  namely,  in  that  we 
all,  I  for  myself  and  thou  for  thyself,  believe  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  This  reaches  us  and  makes  the  other  articles  also  reach 
us.*  The  ordinary  faith  in  God  and  the  divine  power  may, 
indeed,  even  where  this  true  Christian  faith  is  wanting,  become, 
by  the  special  blessing  of  God,  so  strong  as  to  remove  mountains, 

'  Cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  97  .';q.,  139,  159.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  25  sqq.;  supra,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  24  sqq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xliii,  125 ;  xxxvii,  7  sq  ;  xiv,  215  ;  xlvii,  326.  Jeni,  i,  525  b,  539, 
567.     Erl.  Ed.,  1,  310  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  v,  247.      Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  485  ;  x,  154  sq. 

3  Op.  Ex.,  V,  247.     Jena,  i,  539.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxvi,  42 ;  xlvii,  12 ;  1,  310  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  427 

but  even  then,  according  to  i  Cor.  xiii,  2,  it  still  profiteth 
nothing.' 

It  is  manifest  that,  according  to  the  views  thus  expressed, 
every  individual  must,  in  order  to  be  saved,  stand  firm  in  his  own 
faith,  and  must  know  what  he  believes.  We  are  not  saved  by 
the  faith  of  others.  Nor  will  a  faith  such  as  that  of  a  certain 
charcoal-burner  suffice,  who,  when  asked  what  he  believed,  could 
only  reply :  "  What  the  Church  believes,"  and  when  further 
asked,  what  the  Church  believes,  could  say  no  more  than  :  "  Just 
what  I  believe." 

The  discrimination  made  between  an  "  explicif''  and  an 
"  iiiipHcit''  faith,  the  latter  being  sufficient  for  ordinary  people, 
Luther  regards  as  a  pure  fiction.  That  which  is  to  be  believed 
stands  plainly  revealed  for  every  man  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

It  is  God,  however,  who  grants  to  each  individual  the  firm 
personal  assurance  of  faith."  That  the  faith  of  others  may  at 
least  be  helpful,  is  acknowledged  especially  in  Luther's  teaching 
concerning  infant  baptism.  But  this  is  possible  only  in  so  far  as 
the  faith  of  another,  by  its  intercession  in  my  behalf,  moves  God 
to  awaken  faith  in  me.'* 

Luther  here  describes  as  attaining  salvation  the  faith  which 
confidently  lays  hold  upon  the  grace  proffered  in  the  divine  Word 
and  clings  to  it ;  and  in  this,  his  present  apprehension  of  faith 
differs  from  those  earlier  utterances  *  in  which  the  divine  proffer 
and  man's  acceptance  of  it  fell  into  the  background,  while  the 
chief  prominence  was  given  to  desire  and  petition  on  the  part  of 
man.  Faith  is  now  regarded  rather  as  grasping  that  which  has 
been  already  tendered  to  it  as  a  gift.  It  is  "Jidcs  apprehensiva 
Chris ti.'^  "■  With  open  arms  it  embraces  the  Son  of  God  given 
for  it,  lays  hold  upon  and  possesses  this  treasure,  namely,  Christ 
present."     Firmly  and  confidently  it  rests  in  the  Word  of  promise, 

lErl.  Ed.,  viii,  115. 

2  Ibid.,  xxviii,  81,403  sqq. ;  xxvi,  301  ;  i,  189;  xxxix,  133.  Cf.  supra,  p. 
226.  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  362:  "The  experience  of  man's  own  conscience  and  the 
witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart." 

^Unus  quisque  per  se  credit  vel  non  credit,  facit  tamen  aliena  fides  et  im- 
petrat,  ut  et  ego  mea  propria  fide  credam ;  alioqui  quid  sunt  orationes  fidelium 
pro  infidelibus,  etc.?  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  299  sqq.  Briefe  ii,  277  ;  vi,  340.  Cf. 
Vol.  I.,  pp.  276,  399  sq.     Vol.  II.,  p.  45. 

*  Vol.  I.,  p.  243  sq. 


428  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

venturing  all  upon  it.  Faith  means  "  to  risk  one's  self  neartily 
and  boldly  upon  the  Word  (s/c/i  von  Herzen  aiifdas  Wort  erwdge/i) 
— defying  man,  death  and  the  devil,"  etc.  Still,  it  is  true, 
according  to  Luther,  the  germ  of  faith,  which  has  been  truly 
implanted  in  the  heart  by  the  Spirit,  and  is  there  living,  may  yet, 
under  the  stress  of  spiritual  temptations,  be  so  far  concealed  from 
the  view  of  the  believing  heart  itself,  that  the  latter  must  rest 
content  with  the  desire  and  unutterable  groaning  of  spirit,  and 
can  only  say:  "O  that  it  (the  Word)  were  true!  Ah!  happy 
is  he  who  can  believe  it !"  But,  in  such  case,  God  accounts  this 
groaning  of  spirit  and  fragment  of  faith  as  complete  faith.' 

The  laying  hold  upon  {Erg?-eifen)  and  embracing  ( Uiiifasse7i) 
thus  spoken  of,  Luther  would  have  us  understand  in  the  full 
sense  of  those  terms.  Faith  is  to  be,  as  it  were,  a  bag  or  sack, 
into  which  the  heavenly  gift  is  received  ;  or,  reversing  the  figure, 
lue  are  to  insert  {s/eckcn)  ourselves  eiitirely  into  the  Word  con- 
cerning Christ,  His  death,  resurrection,  etc.'^  Faith  is,  finally,  to 
truly  unite  us  inwardly  with  the  person  of  Christ  Himself,  since  it 
lays  hold  upon  Christ.  The  mystical  idea  of  the  indwelling 
Christ  in  the  hearts  of  believers  we  no  longer  find  so  fully 
expanded  as  during  the  earlier  period  of  the  Reformer's  life. 
The  more  decidedly  faith  was  conceived  as  a  simple  trust,  and 
the  more  definitely  salvation  was  apprehended  as  primarily  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  the  more  must  Christ  be  presented  to  faith 
primarily  as  the  objective  basis  of  confidence  and  in  connection 
with  the  objective  work  of  reconciliation  accomplished  by  Him. 
In  strong  contrast  to  Mysticism,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  that 
term,  the  Christ /^^r  us  takes  precedence  of  the  Christ  ///  us.  We 
not  infrequently  are  compelled  to  realize  the  danger,  that,  with 
the  insistence  upon  the  confession  of  and  public  testimony  to  all 
tlie  revealed  truth  upon  which  our  salvation  is  conditioned,  in  the 
midst  of  doctrines  and  theses  the  personal,  living  relation  of  the 
believer  to  his  Saviour  may  be  neglected.  But,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  this  always  remains  for  Luther  the  principal  thing.  And 
while  believers  are  said,  in  personal  approach  to  Christ,  to  trust  in 
Him,   with    this    act    Luther   now   again    combines   the   inward 

'  Teria,i,  539.    Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  191.    Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  326;  iv,  40  sqq. ;  xii. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  118;  iii,  2S8. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  429 

entrance  of  Christ  into  them.  If  utterances  of  the  latter  kind 
are  in  his  later  less  abundant  than  in  in  his  earlier  years,  they  yet 
display  the  same  ideas  and  the  same  deep  fervor  of  spirit.  Such 
l^iresentations  as  those  found  in  \h.tFreiheit  eiiies  Christenmenschen 
occur  again  especially  in  the  sermons  of  the  following  years ;  as, 
for  example,  in  the  Church  Postils.  He  still  describes  how 
Christ,  as  the  BridegroonliTunites  Himself  with  the  believing  soul ; 
how  man  by  faith  enjoys  (feeds  upon)  Christ,  is  transformed  into 
His  likeness  and  becomes  entirely  one  loaf  {Knchc/i)  with  Him ; 
how  God  pours  Himself  and  Christ  into  us  in  order  to  deify  us 
entirely.  But  a  citation  of  later  date,  from  the  Commentary 
upon  Galatians,  has  already  called  our  attention  to  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  within  believers.  This  present  Christ,  it  is 
there  further  declared,  dwells  in  their  hearts, and  is  thus  their 
righteousness ;  yea.  He  is  not  only  the  object  of  faith,  but  He  is 
present  also  within  it.  The  same  publication  declares  also,  that 
the  Christ  apprehended  in  faith  is  not,  so  to  speak,  only  spiritu- 
ally (/.  e.,  speculatively)  within  us,  while  really  in  heaven,  but  that 
He  lives  and  works  in  us,  who  are  the  membeis  of  His  body,  "  re- 
alitcr,  praesenfissime  et  efftcacissime.''''  Luther  at  a  later  day 
rises,  in  the  Exposition  of  the  Gospel  of  John,  to  very  notable 
utterances  in  regard  to  unification  with  the  Saviour.  We  are  to 
rely  alone,  he  there  declares,  upon  Christ  and  His  Word.  Thus 
the  heart  now  becomes  one  thing  with  His  Word,  and  He  Himself 
now  dwells  {stecktyxw.  the  believer  who  clings  to  the  Word,  and 
the  believer  dwells  in  Him.  The  Spirit,  who  awakens  in  me  the 
heartfelt  confidence  of  grace,  makes  of  me  an  entirely  new  plant, 
rooted  in  Christ,  and  I  am  now  like  Him,  so  that  He  and  I  are 
now  of  one  nature  and  kind.  Thus  Christ  and  Christians,  as 
also  Christians  in  their  relation  to  one  another,  become  one  loaf 
(cake)  and  one  body.  This  is  such  a  union  with  Christ  as  re-^ 
sembles  the  combination  of  divine  and  human  natures  in  His  own 
person  in  one  loaf,  although  the  former  is  not  so  lofty  and  grand 
a  union  as  the  latter.  He  is  essentially  resident  in  us,  and  we 
are  made  with  Him  one  flesh,  which  we  cannot  put  asunder. 
Nothing  less  than  this  is  meant  by  the  eating  of  Christ  by  faith, 
which  is  spoken  of  in  Jn.  vi.  Even  the  flesh  and  blood  of 
Christ  must  be  eaten  in  faith.  "  Eat,"  says  the  Lord  :  that  is, 
"  Believe  it."  He  who  lays  hold  upon  it  in  faith,  eats  the  flesh 
and  blood  which  deifies  and  permeates  with  divinity,  /,  e.,  gives 


430  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

to  the  recipient  the  nature  and  power  of  divinity.  He  who  was 
baked  upon  the  cross  is  continually  set  before  us  in  the  Gospel 
as  food,  in  order  that  we  may  believingly  eat  of  Him  and  that 
He  may  be  in  us  and  we  in  Him.' 

It  would  be  a  fruitless  task  to  search  in  the  writings  of  Luther 
for  any  more  precise  psychological  analysis  or  definitions  as  to 
the  nature  of  this  faith.  In  opposition  to  the  idea  that  love  is 
properly  the  saving  element  in  the  believer's  experience,  he  says 
in  one  place  that  the  apprehension  {Ergreifeii)  of  the  innocence 
and  the  victory  of  Christ  is  not  a  matter  of  our  predilection 
{voluntas  dilectionis),  but  a  matter  of  the  reason,  enlightened  by 
faith.  Faith  itself  thus  appears  primarily  as  an  intellectual  ex- 
ercise. Luther,  moreover,  locates  faith  directly  in  the  ^'intcllecliis,''' 
in  contrast  with  hope,  which  he  attributes  to  the  will.  But,  in 
the  same  connection,  he  declares  also  that  faith  in  Christ,  repos- 
ing with  full  confidence  of  heart  in  Him,  is  itself  utterly  im- 
possible without  the  consent  of  the  will  {sine  voliintate).  At 
another  time,  he  says  :  "  The  nature  of  faith  must  be  learned. 
/'.  e.,  that  it  is  will,  or  knowledge,  or  hope,  depending  upon  the 
Word  of  God."  '^  The  element  of  emotion  comes  into  view  in 
the  utterance  concerning  the  divine  character  and  origin  of  faith.' 
Yzx'Ca.  feels  the  certain  truth  of  the  Word,  so  that  no  one  can  tear 
it  away  from  the  latter.^  Yet  Luther  is  accustomed  to  maintain 
with  peculiar  earnestness,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  believer 
dare  not  imagine  that  he  must  always  experience  a  sense  of  grace 
and  blessedness ;  but  that  he  must  hold  fast  to  the  Word  of 
grace  even  when  he  imagines  that  he  can  discover  only  indica- 
tions of  the  divine  displeasure  in  his  outward  circumstances  or 
his  inner  life ;  that,  in  so  far,  faith  must  maintain  itself  without 
feeling,  and  even  in  opposition  to  it.*  Luther  is  thus  led  to  en- 
deavor, as  the  nature  of  the  case  requires,  to  distinguish  the  inner 
assurance  of  the  divine  character  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  wrought 
directly  and  resistlessly  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  from  the  sensuous  and 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  193  sqq. ;  xv,  485,  343  sqq.,  238 ;  cf.  supra,  p.  367.  Comm. 
ad  Gal.,  i,  191  sq. ;  ii,  133  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  73  sq.,  313,  296;  1,  223  sq.  ; 
xlviii,  27  sqq.,  34;  xlvii,  390  sq. ;  iv,  241. 

*  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  25  sq.,  29,  314.  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  199.  Cf.  Tischreden, 
Forst.,  ii,  179.     Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  379  ("  nssensus:  consent  of  the  will  "). 

^  Supra,  p.  226  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  x,  154. 

*Cf.  also  Erl.  Ed.,xvii,  36;  xxiii.  249. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  43  I 

natural  emotions  of  the  individual,  and,  yet  further,  from  the 
experience  of  grace  as  having  already  entered  the  heart  with  its 
benign  influences.  It  remains  for  Luther,  under  all  circum- 
stances, the  principal  thing,  that  faith  be  a  matter  of  the  heart, 
and  that  it  exist  in  the  heart,  not  as  a  cold,  careless,  dead 
thought,  but  as  a  living  power,  laying  hold  upon  Christ,  embrac- 
ing Him,  and  hence  vigorous  and  active  in  Christ. 

We  have  been  taught,  however,  that  this  faith,  to  which  the 
heart  is  awakened  by  the  proclamation  of  divine  grace,  and  in 
which  it  is  renewed  in  nature  and  life,  cannot  be  implanted  un- 
less the  heart  has  been  previously  most  profoundly  alarmed  by 
the  Law,  with  its  stern  rebukes  of  sin.^  We  are  thus  led  to  con- 
sider the  position  of  faith  as  a.n  element  of  repentance.  The  latter 
embraces  faith,  together  wth  the  alarm  of  conscience  awakened 
by  the  Law,  and  must,  therefore,  even  in  the  regenerate,  be  con- 
stantly experienced  anew  on  account  of  the  continued  presence 
of  sin.  We  shall  not,  for  the  present,  enter  at  greater  length 
upon  the  question  concerning  the  agency  of  the  divine  Word,  in 
its  two  elements.  Law  and  Gospel,  in  the  awakening  of  repent- 
ance, as  we  reserve  that  feature  of  the  subject  for  treatment  in 
connection  with  the  means  of  grace — but  we  shall  here  fix  our 
attention  upon  the  states  of  mind  and  heart  produced  in  the  in- 
dividual. We  shall  now  find  presented  fully  and  clearly  the  re- 
lations of  the  separate  elements  involved,  such  as  the  qualms  of 
conscience,  faith,  love  of  righteousness,  good  resolutions,  etc. 
Here  will  be  brought  to  view  in  a  clear  light  that  general  concep- 
tion of  the  subject  to  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  trace  back 
various  utterances  of  the  Reformer,  some  of  which,  separately 
considered,  might  have  seemed  to  support  divergent  theories. 
For  the  further  establishment  of  Luther's  doctrine,  after  the  con- 
troversy with  Carlstadt,  the  discussion  wth  Agricola  played  a 
particularly  important  part.  As  he  had  previously  found  it 
necessary  to  maintain  with  special  emphasis  against  the  Papists, 
that  not  contrition,  but  faith,  saves,  and  that  true  repentance 
springs  from  the  love  of  righteousness ;  so  he  was  now  led  to  in- 
sist that  man  must,  in  all  cases,  first  feel  the  "  thunderbolt  of 
God  " — that  repentance  must  begin  with  the  fear  and  the  judg- 
ment (a  tif?iore  etjudicio)  of  God.     But  he  also  now  insists  that 

*  Cf.  especially,  supra,  p.  30. 


432  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  mere  terrors  of  conscience  which  God  awakens  by  the  pro- 
clamation of  His  Law  and  the  coming  judgment  by  no  means  as 
yet  bring  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  S24ch  penitence,  indeed,  or 
"  contritio,''  is  itself  still  only  "  sin  rightly  felt  in  the  heart,  and 
the  power  and  dominion  of  sin."  It  can  of  itself,  on  the  contrary, 
without  the  ^^"ord  of  grace  and  faith  embracing  that  Word,  only 
make  us  flee  from  God,  and  thus  becomes  a  "  Cain's  repentance." 
In  it,  indeed,  the  working  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  heart  of 
man  is  already  manifest,  rebuking  sin,  but  He  cannot  as  yet  en- 
ter the  heart  as  the  originator  of  inward  blessedness  and  godly 
disposition.  The  knowledge  of  sin  is  only  a  necessary  prerequi- 
site {causa  sine  qua  noii)  for  justification.  The  only  proper 
ground  {causa)  is  the  merit  of  Christ,  or  the  mercy  (of  God), 
which  the  heart,  aroused  by  the  Spirit,  apprehends  in  faith. 
There  must,  therefore,  in  order  that  a  saving  penitence  may  be 
produced,  with  every  terror  awakened  by  the  Law,  be  enkindled 
in  the  heart  also  the  spark  of  the  divine  compassion,  by  which 
the  contrite  soul  may  be  lifted  up  and  may  begin  to  feel  the 
divine  mercy  and  to  cry  in  its  distress  to  God.  From  this  stage 
of  repentance,  /.  e.,  from  the  dawning  of  faith  in  connection  with 
contrition,  we  are  led  at  length  to  that  love  of  righteousness,  with 
which  alone  repentance  becomes  rightly  entitled  to  the  name. 
We  should,  says  Luther,  "  become  hostile  to  sin  from  love,  not 
from  fear  of  punishment."  We  should  repent  from  love  to  the 
Lord  and  reverence  for  Him.  "  To  repent  {bi'issen  :  do  works 
of  penitence)  without  love  for  righteousness  and  delight  in  it — 
is  secretly  to  be  at  enmity  with  God."  But  this  element  is  now 
clearly  presented  as  one  which  is  by  no  means  involved  in  the 
antecedent  terrors  of  conscience,  but  which,  on  the  contrary,  can 
be  realized  only  in  connection  with  grace  and  faith.  It  belongs 
to  repentance  in  the  broad  conception  of  that  term,  as  embracing 
the  entire  fundamental  change  of  heart  {Sinncsdndciuug),  or 
"  amendment."  It  is  only  through  faith,  however,  that  God  gives 
such  amendment.  Repenting  {Biissen  :  doing  works  of  peni- 
tence) with  love  and  delight  is  possible  only  as  a  f  niit  of  the  power 
of  the  keys,  /'.  e.,  after  man  has  the  sure  consolation  of  grace. 
"  Penitent  souls  ought  to  iahc  hope,  and  thus  to  hate  sin  from  what 
is,  properly  speaking,  a  good  motive,  /.  e.,  from  the  love  of  God." 
Thus,  again,  the  proper  and  permanent  blotting  out  of  sin  follows 
only  upon  the  forgiveness  of  it,  apprehended  by  faith,  not,  in- 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW. 


433 


deed,  without  continued  distress  and  assailments  of  evil,  hut  yet 
by  means  of  the  Spirit's  gift  now  bestowed  upon  the  believer. 
Thus  faith  in  Christ  brings  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  also  their 
crucifixion  through  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

Bjit  /unci,  it  may  still  be  asked,  are  repentance  and  faith  called 
into  existence  in  the  apprehension  of  the  terrifying,  and,  particu- 
larly, of  the  promising  and  comforting.  Word  of  God?  We  must 
here  take  as  our  starting-point  Luther's  doctrine  concerning  the 
state  of  the  natural  man,  with  his  free  will,  or,  rather,  his  utter 
incapaci4:y.''  In  view  of  this,  Luther  flatly  declares  that  faith  is 
entirely  the  work  and  gift  of  God,  who  makes  His  Word  effectual 
in  the  souls  of  men.  Man's  own  will  cannot  hear  when  God 
speaks.  He  is,  in  truth,  a  pillar  of  salt  like  Lot's  wife.  Although 
we  have  nothing  more  to  contribute  to  our  righteousness  than  not 
to  reject  the  proffered  mercy  but  believingly  accept  it,  yet  even 
this  is  itself  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  faith  is  not  a  matter 
(within  the  reach)  of  every  one  (2  Thess.  iii.  2).  The  Father 
must  draw  us,  as  externally  through  the  Word  of  Christ,  so  also 
internally  through  the  Spirit,  by  whom  He  "  impresses  upon  the 
heart  "  His  Word.  Man  is  in  this  process  but  mere  material, 
which  God  lays  hold  of  by  His  Word  and  transforms — mere  clay 
in  the  hand  of  the  potter.  "  We  do  not  here  choose  nor  do  any- 
thing, but  we  are  chosen,  prepared,  regenerated."  ■*  When,  there- 
fore, lAither  exhorts  men  to  believe,  when  he  blames  men  them- 
selves for  their  unbelief,  when  he  gives  the  assurance  that  those 
who  perseveringly  seek  and  long  for  the  Spirit  of  God  shall  be 
heard,  etc.,  we  dare  not  immediately  infer  that  man  is  thus,  after 
all,  able  to  do  something  of  himself.  In  view  of  the  strict  dog- 
matic utterances  of  Luther  in  regard  to  free  will  and  divine  pre- 
destination and  universal  agency,  even  such  practical  exhortations 
and  assurances  must  be  understood  as  capable  of  exercising  any 
real  influence  upon  the  hearts  of  hearer  or  reader  only  through 
the  will  and  power  of  God.     We  cannot  even  find  any  counten- 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  68,  161  sqq.,  190,  245  sq.,263  sq.,  324  sq.,  402,  416.  Vol. 
II.,  p.  30.  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  128  sqq. ;  cf.  xxiii,  12  sqq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  193  sq. 
Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  367  sq.  Jena,  i,  554  b,  sqq.,  541.  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  loi,  49 ;  x,  127- 
129.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  151,  264sqq.;  xxxi,  183.   Op.  Ex.,  x,  135;  xix,  45.  Jena, 1,571. 

^  Supra,  p.  350  sqq. 

^  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  83.     Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  318;  xix,  121.      Erl.  Ed.,  xlv.  360; 
xlvii,  351  sq.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  81 ;  i,  106. 
28 


434  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ance  given  in  Luther's  writings  to  the  dogmatic  conception,  that 
although,  indeed,  the  new  good  inclinations  and  impulses  must 
come  entirely  from  above,  yet  man  is  thereby  enabled  and  sum- 
moned to  decide  voluntarily  for  himself  whether  he  will  or  will  not 
follow  them.  Even  this  following  of  good  impulses  appears,  on 
the  contrary,  as  we  have  seen,  only  as  the  result  of  divine 
agency,  dealing  with  man  as  mere  material.  Yet,  nevertheless, 
an  unprejudiced  view  directed  upon  the  divine  injunctions  given 
to  man  will  always  struggle  against  the  interpretation  according 
to  which  God  Himself  leaves  to  one  class  of  hearers  no  possibility 
whatever  of  obeying,  whilst  to  the  other  class  not  only  granting  the 
possibility,  but  by  the  exercise  of  His  absolute  power  really  as- 
suring the  actual  manifestation  of  obedience.  When  Luther  ex- 
horts the  hearer  who  is  as  yet  unable  to  recognize  the  divine 
character  of  the  Word  of  God  to  nevertheless  hear  it  frequently, 
and  assures  him  that,  in  that  case,  the  hour  will  yet  come  when 
God  shall  impress  it  upon  his  heart — when  he  admonishes  the 
weak  brother  to  pray,  according  to  Mk.  ix.  24,  for  faith,  which  is 
by  no  means  an  easy  thing,  and  which  is  the  gift  of  God  alone, 
comforting  him  with  the  assurance  that  God  will  approve  our 
weakness,  "  if  we  only  begin  to  believe  and  keep  close  to  the 
Word,"  '  we  feel  ourselves  driven  to  a  dogmatic  explanation  of 
the  kind  suggested,  /.  e.,  that,  after  the  inclination  toward  God  has 
been  awakened  in  man,  the  desire  for  salvation  enkindled,  the 
germinating  though  weak  faith  implanted,  then  the  perseverance 
or  non-perseverance  and  the  progress  in  the  appropriation  of  grace 
or  the  falling  from  grace  no  longer  depend  only  upon  the  abso- 
lute, hidden  will  of  God,  but,  at  the  same  time  also,  upon  the 
personal  decision  of  the  individual  himself.  We  should  here  re- 
call, too,  what  was  said  in  our  Second  Chapter  concerning  the 
general  divine  loving-will,  and  concerning  the  actual  proffer  of 
salvation  to  the  recipients  of  the  means  of  grace.  But  we  must 
always  bear  in  mind  that  any  dogmatic  solution  of  the  problem 
which  we  may  thus  endeavor  to  reach  is  yet  not  to  be  regarded 
as  furnished  by  Luther  himself. 

To  designate  the  true  faith,  as  thus  effected  by  God  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  men,  Luther  now  employs  also 
the  scholastic  term,  ^^ fides  infusa''  (infused  faith),  in  contrast 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  353  sq. ;  xvi,  207  ;  cf.  also  xlv,  378. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  435 

with  '■^ fides  acqitisita"  or  a  faith  secured  by  man's  own  powers, 
which  latter  is  a  merely  historical  and  not  as  yet  a  justifying  faith, 
nor,  indeed,  any  faith  at  all,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  On 
the  other  hand,  such  a  "fides  infusa  "  as  is,  according  to  the 
view  of  the  Scholastics,  a  mere  dormant  "  qiialitas,"  in  which 
the  believer  does  not  as  yet  personally  apply  the  message  of  sal- 
vation to  himself,  and  which  still  requires  to  be  given  a  positive 
form  {Jonnirt  werden)  by  love,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  Luther,  an 
empty  nothing.  In  contrast  with  this,  the  "fides  acquisita  "  is 
still  at  least  something.  The  man  who  has  the  latter,  /.  e.,  a  his- 
torical faith,  has,  at  all  events,  the  voice  of  the  Gospel  within  him, 
which  at  least  constantly  admonishes  him  to  become  a  true  be- 
liever.^ 

2.   T/ie  yustification  Effected  by  Faith. 

EMBRACES   ENTIRE    NEW   CONDITION — FORGIVENESS   AND    ACCEPTANCE 

CONCEPTION  OF  GRACE INFUSION  OF  CHRIST'S  LIFE  AND  OF  THE 

HOLY    SPIRIT REGENERATION PASSIVE    AND    ACTIVE SANCTIFICA- 

TION SENSE     OF     PARDON FAITH      EFFECTIVE      BECAUSE      OF     ITS 

OBJECT,    CHRIST DEPENDENCE     OF     BELIEVER     THROUGH      LIFE 

GRACIOUS    REWARDS. 

This  faith,  therefore,  justifies.  It  alo7ie  justifies.  Appropri- 
ately and  correctly  may  Rom.  iii.  28  be  accordingly,  with  Luther, 
translated  :  "  Man  is  justified  alone  by  faith,"  even  though  the 
four  letters,  "  sola,"  do  not  stand  in  the  passage;  for  such  is  the 
meaning  of  the  apostle,  who  there  absolutely  excludes  all  works, 
so  that  nothing  but  faith  remains.^ 

But  what  is  meant  precisely  by  this  supremely  important  de- 
claration, that  i-xv'Cix  justifies  ? 

We  find  in  Luther's  conception  of  the  idea  here  expressed  the 
same  leading  elements  uniformly  included  which  he  had  from 
the  beginning  embraced  in  it.^  It  expresses  nothing  less  than  the 
entire  new  condition  into  which  faith  elevates  him  who  exercises 
it,  /.  (?.,  that  the  believer  has  received  the  remission  of  sins,  that 
God  acknowledges  him  as  righteous,  and  that  he,  through  Christ 

'  Briefe,  v,  377.     Jena  i,  538  b,  sq.,  541,  566,  570. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  104,  108  sqq.,  115  sqq. 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  99  sq.,  166  sq.,  285  sq.,  397  sq.,  411  sq. 


436  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

apprehended  in  his  faith,  has  also  in  his  own  disposition,  his  pur- 
poses and  aims,  become  new,  pious  and  right.  So  far  as  any 
modification  or  progress  is  traceable  in  Luther's  writings  in  the 
conception  of  this  term,  it  is  found — in  harmony  with  remarks 
previously  made — in  the  fact  that  the  elements  first  named  are 
given  more  distinct  prominence  and  emphasis  than  were  at  first 
accorded  them.  As  positively  as  it  is  maintained  that  man  must, 
in  justification,  be  also  inwardly  renewed  by  the  Spirit,  is  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  distinctly  selected  as  the  first  element,  and 
the  position  earnestly  supported,  that  such  renewal  is  in  the 
beginning  only  incipient  and  incomplete,  and  that  the  individual 
experiencing  it  is  still  accepted  as  righteous  only  by  virtue  of  the 
forgiving  grace  of  God  and  through  the  imputation  of  the  objec- 
tive righteousness  of  Christ. 

The  words,  "  6LKaiovv,jiisti/icare,"  Luther'  commonly  translates 
"  make  righteous  "  ;  in  the  passive  voice,  "  become  righteous." 
The  term,  ^^  rechtfertigen''  (justify),  expresses  also  for  him  the 
same  idea;  si«ce  he  regards  "  7-ecJitferiig^'  (ready  to  face  the 
Law)  as  identical  in  meaning  with  "^<f;r^/i/"  (righteous)."'  But 
this  explanation  of  the  terms  employed  affords  us  no  specific 
information  as  to  the  relation  of  the  constituent  elements  to  one 
another.  The  question  is:  What  did  Luther  understand  pre- 
cisely by  this  "  making  and  becoming  righteous  "? 

We  are  taught,  for  example,  as  follows  :  "  We  should  learn  that 
we  become  righteous  and  delivered  from  (our)  sins  through  for- 
giveness of  silts  "  /  "  It  is  necessary  to  attribute  to  faith  justification 
i^justificationeni),  or  remission  of  sins  "  ;  "  Christian  righteousness 
is  nothing  else  than  alone  forgiveness  of  sins."  "  Righteousness 
{Justitia)  is  when  sins  are  not  observed,  but  ignored,  condoned, 
and  not  reckoned  {reputantur')  T  ^  Accordingly,  our  becojniiJg 
righteous  through  faith  means  that  God  regards,  declares, 
accounts,  pronounces,  etc.,  us  as  righteous.  That  is  to  say,  He 
so  accounts  us  just  because  He  no  longer  looks  upon  that  in  us 
which  conflicts  with  righteousness,  but,  on  the  contrary,  looks 
only  upon  our  faith,  which  lays  hold  upon  the  righteous  Christ. 
Both  expressions — the  negative,  "  forgive,"  and  the  positive, 
"  account  as  righteous,"  thus  describe  for  Luther  one  and  the 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  411.  2Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  x,  17;  vii,  139;  lii,  215;  li,  355. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  V,  247;  XXV,  76;  xiv,  182.  Jena  i,  560  b;  cf.  539  b.  Op.  Ex., 
xix,  43;  XX,  191. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  437 

same  act,  and  are  frequently  by  him  placed  side  by  side.  "  Faith 
is  our  righteousness,  for  God  desires  to  have  all  who  have  such 
faith  in  His  Son  accounted  and  regarded  as  righteous,  pious  and 
holy,  and  as  having  all  sin  and  eternal  life  granted  them."  Thus, 
says  he,  every  one  who  is  justified  is  yet  a  sinner,  but  he  is 
accounted  as  perfectly  righteous  through  the  forgiving,  compas- 
sionate God.  Through  " gratia' tarn  imputationem''^  we  receive 
the  heavenly,  eternal  righteousness.'  So  entirely  does  he,  in  the 
first  of  the  above-cited  passages,'^  place  the  righteous-making  in 
the  forgiveness,  or  imputation,  that  he  bluntly  declares,  that 
Christian  righteousness  is  not  in  the  heart  and  soul  of  man,  into 
which  it  is,  according  to  the  teaching  of  our  opponents,  supposed 
to  have  crept  as  a  "  qualitas  "/  but  we  become  righteous  simply 
through  the  forgiveness  (of  our  sins). ^  But  with  this  righteous- 
ness, salvation  and  every  blessing  are  also  imparted  to  the  believer. 
God  designs,  as  we  have  just  heard,  that  he  shall  also  have 
eternal  life  bestowed  upon  him.  Where  there  is  forgiveness  of 
sins,  there  is  also  already  life  and  eternal  blessedness.  Yea, 
salvation  and  eternal  blessedness  consist  precisely  in  the  fact 
that  we  receive  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  become  partakers  of 
the  grace  of  God.* 

With  this  conception  of  the  process  of  salvation  is  intimately 
connected,  further,  the  zeal  of  Luther  for  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word,  '■'■grace,'''  in  opposition  to  the  scholastic  employment  of  it. 
He  is  no  longer  willing  to  understand  by  it  a  "  quality  of  the 
soul  " — not  even  the  inwardly-imparted  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit — 
although  he  too  had  at  first,  following  the  prevalent  usage,  spoken 
of  infused  {"  iiifusa''  or  "  infitudeiida")  grace,  and  of  "grace, 
which  is  Christian  love  "  {caritas).  He  distinguishes  grace  from 
the  Spirit  and  His  gifts,  on  the  contrary,  as  being  God's  "  clem- 
enc)',  or  favor  {Hi/Id  oder  Gunst),  which  He  bears  toward  us," 
by  virtue  of  which  He,  first  of  all,  forgives  us  our  sins,  and  by 
which  He  is  disposed  to  pour  into  us  Christ  and.  the  Spirit  with 
His  gifts.     Upon  this  grace,  which  forgives  man's  sins,  and  puts 

1  Jena,  i,  543  b.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  322.  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  299  sqq.  Erl.  Ed., 
xxiv,  325  ;  Ixv,  89.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  14,  16. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  V,  267. 

'Cf.  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  44  and  infra, 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  20;  xv,  385;  cf.  supra,  p.  210. 


438  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

him  into  the  kingdom  of  divine  mercy,  is  to  follow  the  divine 
indwelling,  John  xiv.  23.  This  grace,  in  its  objectivity,  is  thus 
the  ground  and  the  object  of  our  trust ;  and  through  it  we, 
though  gifts  and  Spirit  are  yet  imperfect  within  us,  are  already 
accounted  entirely  righteous  before  God.' 

Yet  never,  according  to  Luther,  shall  forgiveness,  or  justifica- 
tion in  the  above  sense  of  the  word,  be  permitted  to  remain 
alone.  P'aith,  since  it  tiustfully  apprehends  Christ  and  His 
righteousness,  brings  Him  also  truly  into  the  heart ;  and  with 
Christ,  all  that  belongs  to  Him  becomes  our  own,  and  Chrisfs 
righteousness  and  life  must  so  manifest  themselves  as  actual  and 
powerful  as  to  flow  out,  like  the  waters  of  a  fountain,  into  those 
who  aie  partakers  of  them,  so  that  "  the  same  powers  of  right- 
eousness and  life  woik  within  us,  just  as  if  they  had  been  im- 
planted within  us  by  Him  from  our  birth."  Through  this  grace, 
distinct  from  the  Spirit,  the  Spirit  is  yet,  as  we  have  heard, 
infused.  Yea,  He  dwells  in  believers,  not  only  with  His  gifts, 
but  "  according  to  His  essence  "  {quoad  essentiani  suam).  Nor 
does  He  slumber  in  them,  but  He  is  constantly  at  work,  lifting 
them  up,  guiding,  strengthening,  etc.-  We  are  thus  led  also  to 
the  distinct  announcement,  that  faith  itself  is  not  an  inactive 
property  {otiosa  qualitas),  but  something  living,  active,  etc. 
This  it  is  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  living,  in  that  it  over- 
comes doubt,  the  assaults  of  the  devil,  death,  etc.  It  is  living, 
active,  powerful,  in  that  it  entirely  transforms  us,  begets  us  anew 
from  God,  crucifies  the  old  Adam,  makes  us  different  persons  in 
heart,  courage,  disposition  and  all  our  powers,  and  must  con- 
stantly be  engaged  in  active  works.'*  So  decidedly  is  faith, 
embracing  Christ  in  itself,  in  the  opinion  of  Luther,  a  living, 
independent  power  in  man,  that  he,  in  opposition  to  those  who 
saw  in  it  an  inactive,  empty  quality  and  "fides  inforjuis,'"  de- 
scribes it  as  an  "  efificacious  and  operative  something  {guiddi- 
tatein),   or,   as   it   were,  substance,  or  (as  they  say)  substantial 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xiv,  241.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  166  sq.,  324.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  I23sq,; 
xii,  285  sq.     Jena,  ii,  425  b.     Op.  Ex.,  xix,  109  ;  cf.  Briefe,  v,  354,  377. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  120.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  244  sq.  ;  ii,  134.  Op.  Ex.,  xix, 
109  sq. 

'Op.  Ex.,  vii,  133.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  124  sq.  ;  xiii,  267  ;  xiv,  75;  xv,  276 sq.; 
xviii,  127;  xxviii,  383  sq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  2.  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  107  sq. 
Briefe,  iii,  375. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  439 

form."  '  And  this  entire  inward  transformation  Luther  now  in- 
cludes under  the  terms,  "  justification,  making  righteous,  right- 
eousness," whose  primary  conception  we  have  found  to  he  in  the 
first  element  above  spoken  of,  /.  e.,  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
Having  spoken  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  constituting  an 
active  force  within  us,'^  he  then  says  further  :  Through  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ,  which  is  outside  of  themselves,  men  become 
righteous  in  this  way,  /.  e.,  Christ  touches  them  with  His  hand, 
and  imparts  to  them  His  work  and  power  for  the  obliteration  of 
sin  and  death.  To  the  process  of  ''  becoming  righteous  "  belongs 
here,  it  will  be  observed,  also  the  inward  operation  above  spoken 
of.  He  speaks  of  an  inward  justification  in  spirit  and  heart 
through  faith,^  in  which  the  heart  is  made  upright,  believing, 
pious  and  good,  and  from  which  must  then  flow  an  outward, 
public  righteousness  visible  to  men.  He  speaks  of  the  former 
kind  of  righteousness  as  involving,  that  faith  makes  me  acceptable 
to  God,  and  that  Christ  therein  puts  the  Holy  Spirit  into  my 
heart,  who  makes  me  delight  in  all  that  is  good.  The  Smakald 
Articles,  when  treating  of  "  becoming  righteous,"  assert  that  we 
through  faith  receive  a  new,  pure  heart,  and  that  God  is  willing 
for  Christ's  sake  to  regard  us  as  righteous.  "  Justification  "  is 
even  identified  directly  with  regeneration  :  "  Justification  is  a 
certain  genuine  regeneration  into  newness  (of  life),  as  John 
says;  they  who  believe  in  His  name,  etc.,  are  born  of  God." 
Luther  expressly  distinguishes,  as  the  "  two  parts  of  justification"  : 
first,  the  grace  revealed  through  Christ,  /.  e.,  that  God  is  reconciled 
to  us,  that  sin  can  no  more  bring  charge  against  us,  and  that  the 
conscience  has  certainty  in  its  trust  m  the  mercy  of  God ;  sec- 
ondly, the  bestowal  of  the  Spirit,  with  His  gifts,  which  operate 
against  the  impurity  of  our  spirit  and  flesh,  promote  our  progress 
in  the  knowledge  of  God,  etc.  (In  accordance  with  Luther's 
utterances  elsewhere,  we  may  add,  that  the  assurance  of  the  con- 
science here  included  in  the  first  category  is  also  an  effect  of  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.)*     He  now  also  speaks,  with  refer- 

iComm.  ad  Gal.,ii,  32259.  (withi,  191 ;  ii,  133).  Tischr.,  Forst,  i,  48  (Erl. 
Ed.,  Ivii,  62). 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  120;  cf.  supra. 

^  Cf.  the  "inner"  righteousness,  Vol.  I.,  p.  166. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  238  sq. ;  xii,  89;  xxv,  142;  cf.  also  xiv,  240.  Jena,  540  b. 
Op.  Ex.,  xix,  48. 


440  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ence  to  the  inner  transformation  of  the  individual  which  belongs 
to  justification,  of  an  incipient,  a  progressive,  and  a  yet-to-be- 
hoped-for  complete  justification.^ 

The  New  Birth,  to  the  consideration  of  which  we  are  thus  led 
in  our  investigation  of  the  nature  of  justification,  is  effected, 
according  to  the  views  above  cited,  through  faith.  Luther  com- 
monly includes  in  his  conception  of  it  also  the  divinely-effected 
origination  of  faith  itself.  The  Holy  Spirit  begets  us  anew  from 
God,  in  that  He  begets  faith,  and  thus  new,  godly  thoughts,  an 
entirely  new  heart,  a  new  man,  which  must  then,  with  continuous 
and  ever-advancing  crucifixion  of  the  old  man,  maintain  its  char- 
acter and  grow,  until  finally  the  whole  body  shall  also  be  renewed. 
He  even,  regarding  the  entire  new  life  as  already  essentially 
included  in  faith,  declares  directly  that  the  div'ine  birth  is  nothing 
else  than  faith  itself.^ 

We  have  already  ^  called  attention  to  Luther's  designation  (in 
a  sermon  of  A.  D.  15 18)  of  the  righteousness  of  the  believer  as 
twofold,  /.  e.,  the  foreign,  essential  righteousness  appropriated  in 
faith,  and  his  own,  unfolding  itself  in  his  life  and  works.  Luther 
means  to  make  the  same  discrimination  when  he  now  speaks  of 
the  '■'■justitia  passiva,'^  which  we  receive  by  grace  through  faith 
from  heaven,  and  of  the  '■'■justitia  activa,''^  which  falls  within  the 
sphere  of  morals  and  works.  The  former,  says  he,  must  precede. 
He  who  has  this  righteousness  within  {i;it//s)  descends  then,  as 
a  fructifying  rain  falls  upon  the  earth,  from  the  heaven  into  which 
it  has  elevated  him,  accomplishing  all  possible  good  works.  Thus 
we  see  here  again*  included  in  the  first- named  form  of  right- 
eousness, or  that  of  faith  as  involving  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  also 
the  implantation  of  the  new  ethical  power  or  principle  :  for  it  is 
as  one  who  already  cherishes  the  latter  within  himself  that  the 
justified  believer  descends  like  the  rain  from  heaven.^  The 
righteousness  of  faith,  as  well  as  the  other  form,  /.  <?.,  the  right- 
eousness of  works,  Luther  finds,  for  example,  in  the  conception 
of  righteousness,  as  mentioned  in  Ps.  xlv.  7  (Thou  lovest  right- 

'Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  312.  Jena,  i,  538  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  256  (following 
Rev.  xxii,  11).     Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  167,  286. 

=*  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  260  sqq  ,  267,  269  sq.,  275  sqq. ;  xii,  386  sqq.,  404  sqq. ; 
X,  206  sq.  ;   iv.,  178,  184  sq. 

3  Vol.  I.,  p.  286.  *  Ibid. 

^Cf.  especially  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  13  sqq.,  23. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  44 1 

eousness).  The  word,  says  he,  is  here  to  be  understood  ^^ geiie- 
ralissime,^''  as  including  ahke  both  forms. ^ 

Luther's  conception  of  Holiness  and  Sanctification  is  in  perfect 
accord  with  his  view  of  justification  and  righteousness.  Since  the 
word  "  holy  "  signifies  for  him,  in  general,  that  which  belongs  to 
God,  is  dedicated  to  God,  and  set  apart  from  all  profane  use,^ 
Christians  are  in  his  view  holy,  first  of  all,  through  the  blood  of 
Christ ;  through  the  Word  of  grace,  which  acquits  of  every 
charge ;  through  the  faith  in  forgiving  grace,  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  enkindles,  etc.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  "  sanctify- 
ing ",  of  John  xvii.  17,  and  by  the  "  sanctifying  "  of  the  heart. 
We  thus  boast  of  a  holiness  which  is  outside  of  us  {extra  iios), 
not  our  work,  a  heavenly  holiness  (cf.  the  first,  or  essential, 
righteousness  spoken  of  above).  But  Christians  are  holy,  further- 
more, in  that  they  now,  through  the  Spirit  imparted  to  them, 
crucify  the  lusts  of  their  flesh,  live  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
Word,  and  serve  God  in  the  various  walks  of  Christian  life  which 
are  sanctified  by  His  Word.     In  this  sense,  holiness  is  progressive.^ 

Luther  now,  however,  occasionally  employs  the  word  in  the 
narrower  sense,  as  denoting  this  continuous  putting  away  of  sin, 
in  itself  considered,*  just  as  he  understands  by  justification,  in  the 
narrower  sense,  the  appropriation  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  in 
itself  considered. 

The  employment  of  this  broad  and  comprehensive  conception 
of  righteousness  and  justification  does  not,  however,  by  any 
means  imply  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  objective 
acceptance  of  man  by  God  are,  in  consequence,  allowed  to  lose 
their  position  and  significance  as  the  first  and  absolutely  funda- 
mental element.  Luther  is  constantly  reiterating  the  statements, 
that  precisely  in  this  element  consists  justification  itself,  and  that 
in  it  is  already  involved  the  complete,  true  and  essential  right- 
eousness.^ Even  when  he  so  represents  the  new  life  (walk)  and 
personal  righteousness,  or  the   righteousness  of  works,  as  pro- 

'Op.  Ex.,  xviii,    189. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  361  ;   xlv,  254.     Op.  Ex.,  xiv,  62}  i,  99. 

^Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  34  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  142  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  68  sq. ; 
viii,  143  ;  xlix,  221  sq. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  46.     Erl.  Ed.,  xli,  214. 

*That  conception  of '<  justificatio,"  however,  according  to  which  it  appears 
ah'eady  in  the  •'  crucifixion"  which  precedes  faith,  no  longer  meets  us. 


442  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

ceeding  from  the  righteousness  of  faith  that  the  latter  appears  to 
already  include  in  itself  the  new,  inner  life  principle,  he  still,  in 
his  delineation  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  gives  the  first  place 
to  the  simple  acceptance  as  righteous  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins.' 
Just  in  this,  indeed,  does  he  find  the  inner  life-principle  neces- 
sarily involved,  and  hence,  in  this  sense,  n.iaintains  that  where 
forgiveness  is,  there  also  is  life.  When  he  then  speaks  more 
definitely  of  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit  which  accompanies 
justification,  he  expressly  represents  the  latter  as  following  upon, 
and  proceeding  from,  forgiveness."  But  to  however  great  an 
extent  the  believer  may  have  appropriated  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit, 
incipiently  and  actually  begun  a  new  moral  life,  or,  in  other 
words,  have  made  advances  in  justification,  yet  Luther  always 
insists  with  the  greatest  emphasis  that  he  has  still  not  attained 
in  this  direction  that  which  he  should  attain,  and  that  he  is, 
accordingly,  not  yet  righteous  and  pure,  but  is  yet  a  sinner,  and 
only  engaged  in  the  process  of  following  after  righteousness.  Yet 
he  is,  at  the  same  time,  according  to  Luther,  righteous  before 
God  just  in  so  far  as,  on  account  of  his  faith,  his  sin  and  imper- 
fection are  forgiven  him  and  true  righteousness  iinpiited  to  him. 
There  is  and  remains  a  "jitsfitia  rci/iissionis  peccatorion."  And 
this  righteousness,  or  justification — /.  e.,  righteousness  in  the 
primary,  or  narrower  sense,  acceptance  as  righteous,  forgiveness — 
appears  always,  whenever  it  exists,  /.  e.,  wherever  there  is  faith 
in  Christ,  as  complete.  It  "  comes  not  in  parts,  but  in  one 
heap."  By  virtue  of  it  man  is  entirely  righteous,  according  to 
both  his  person  and  his  works.''' 

We  must,  finally,  in  the  study  of  Luther's  deliverances  upon  this 
general  subject,  discriminate  between  the  forgiveness  of  sins  itself 
and  the  yoyous  Exaltation  of  Spirit  in  the  recognition  of  such 
forgiveness  as  actually  attained,  which,  in  view  of  the  bestowal  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  cannot  fail  to  be  experienced  by  the  believer 
(77V/.  seq.),  and  which,  in  the  above-cited  division  of  justification 
into  "  two  parts  ",  must  be  included  under  the  first  part.  Even 
among  those  who  have  experienced  the  grace  of  God — yea,  and 
just  precisely  among  such — is  still  experienced  the  sense  of  sin. 

'  Cf.,  e.  g.,  Comm.  ad  Cia].,  i,  13  sqq. 
''Op.  Ex.,  xix,  109  sq.,  48.     Erl.  Ed,,  xxv,  135. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  171;  xlix,  276.  Jena  i,  543  b.  Erl.  YA.,  vii,  253 ;  xxv, 
142;  Ixiii,  123  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  443 

Sin  alarms  their  consciences  and  makes  their  hearts  tremble. 
Yea,  God  Himself  often  withdraws  from  His  saints  this  joyous 
sense  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  presence,  and  allows  their  hearts  to  feel, 
instead,  as  though  they  were  abandoned  by  God  and  His  grace, 
just  as  Christ  Himself  was  alternately  greatly  exalted  and  deeply 
depressed  in  spirit.  The  believer  shall,  in  such  case,  remember 
(know)  that  he  has  nevertheless  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
further,  that  it  is  just  in  the  midst  of  the  assaults  of  temptation, 
and  through  them,  that  God  makes  His  grace  operative.  We 
dare  not,  in  any  event,  imagine  that  true  righteousness  is  a  matter 
of  feeling.  The  proper  course  is  to  believe  in  present  forgiveness 
and  grace  without  a  feeling  and  against  feeling.' 

Thus  are  we  to  understand  the  righteousness  which  the  Chris- 
tian possesses  by  virtue  of  his  faith.     It  is  thus  that  he  is  justified. 

But  we  must  now,  turning  our  attention  directly  upon  the  for- 
giveness, exercise  of  grace,  or  acceptance  as  righteous,  of  which 
so  much  has  been  said,  scrutinize  more  carefully  the  position, 
that  //  is  precisely  Faith  by  which  the  Christian  secures  this. 

We  note  clearly,  first  of  all,  in  Luther's  utterances,  his  direct 
contradiction  of  the  opinion  that  man  can  in  advance  perform 
good  works,  and  then,  through  these,  contribute  something  to  his 
justification.  Before  man  can  begin  to  fulfil  the  Law,  or  to  love 
God  and  his  neighbor,  he  must  have  the  Spirit,  and  the  latter 
comes  only,  according  to  Gal.  iii.  2,  through  the  hearing  of  faith.^ 

We  find  reiterated  particularly  the  sc/iptural  principle,  that  the 
tree  must  be  good  before  the  fruit  can  be  good. 

Luther  rejects  especially  that  conception  of  justifying  faith, 
according  to  which  it  is  only  something  else,  which  is  added  to 
such  faith,  namely,  the  love  which  is  represented  as  "  forming  " 
{gestaltende)  and  "  adorning  "  it,  which  is  regarded  as  constituting 
the  justifying  element.  Such,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  the 
scholastic  doctrine  of  an  "  undeveloped  faith  "  (fides  informis) 
and  a  faith  "  developed  by  love  "  {caritate  fo?-?)iata).^  Even  love 
itself  is  possible,  according  to  Luther,  only  as  man  has  already 
without  it  become,  for  Christ's  sake,  acceptable  to  God,  free 
from  the  guilt  of  sin,  or  righteous,  purely  through  faith.  "  If  we 
have   and  believe   the   forgiveness   of   sins,   then  love  follows." 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  180.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlv,  229  sq. ;  xii,  198  sq. ;  xlvii,  324  sq. ; 
1,  62  ;   xi,  20  sqq.      Op.  Ex.,  iii,  278  sq.  '  Cf.  supra,  p.  430. 

'^  Comm.  ad    Gal.,  i,  366  sqq.  3  Yo]_  j^  p   gg_ 


444  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

This,  he  holds,  is  also  the  meaning  of  Lk.  vii.  47  (cf.  50). 
"  Love  is  the  fruit  and  consequence,  not  the  ornament  and 
supplement,  of  faith,  the  Spirit  and  righteousness."  It  is  not 
true,  as  the  Scholastics  teach,  that  love  gives  to  faith  its  living 
hue  and  its  opulence  {Fiillc)  :  but,  on  the  contrary,  Christ,  whom 
faith  grasps,  who  is  Himself  present  in  this  firm  and  heartfelt 
confidence,  who  is  held  by  faith  as  a  jewel  is  held  in  a  ring — 
HE  is  the  "  Form  which  adorns  and  gives  form  to  faith."  ' 

On  the  other  hand,  whilst  thus  turning  the  thoughts  of  his 
readers  away  from  that  love,  which,  with  its  fruits,  appears  only 
as  a  result  of  faith,  to  fix  them  upon  faith  itself,  Luther  still,  as 
formerly,  frequently  emphasizes  the  ethical  nature  of  faith  as 
being,  in  and  of  itself,  a  proper  attitude  and  disposition  toward 
God  and  the  divine  Law.'^  Just  as  unbelief  is  looked  upon  as  a 
violation  of  the  fundamental  Commandment,  and  hence  a  funda- 
mental sin,''  so  he  regards  faith  as  an  obedience  rendered  to  the 
first  and  fundamental  Commandment  of  the  Decalogue.  It  is 
for  him  the  highest  form  of  divine  service.  In  contrast  with  the 
doing  of  works  and  the  exercise  of  love,  which  cannot  justify, 
Luther  represents  faith  as  the  first  and  proper  "  doing"  (facere). 
With  "  moral  doing  "  {facere  morale^  he  contrasts  "  doing  with 
faith  "  {fidc/e  facere).  Here,  says  he,  is  the  real  sacrifice,  in 
which  man's  own  reason,  which  is  the  worst  enemy  of  God,  is 
offered  to  God  in  sacrifice.  Here  is  rendered  to  God  that 
which  is  His  due,  His  glory  and  His  divinity  being  acknowledged, 
in  that  He  is  regarded  as  the  God  who  cares  for  us,  answers  our 
prayers,  has  compassion  upon  us,  etc.  And  it  is  with  frath  as 
viewed  in  this  aspect  that  Luther  expressly  connects  justification. 
Faith,  says  he,  justifies  because  it  gives  God  the  supreme  glory, 
according  to  Rom.  iv.  20.  Contrasting  it  with  the  merit  of  works, 
upon  which  his  opponents  relied,  he  calls  this  faith  the  "  proper 
work  and  merit  by  which  God  wishes  to  be  glorified."  It  thus 
appears  to  be  only  as  a  supplementary  element  that  to  the  value 

'Jena,  i,  565  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  117  sq.  ;  vi,  344  sq.,  349;  xxxi,  345  sq. 
Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  191  sqq.,  195,  235,  244. 

'Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  175  sq.,413  sq.  ;  and  from  earlier  period,  especially  Erl.  Ed., 
XX,  196  sqq.  ;  Ixiii,  126;  xvii,  1 17;  and  from  later  writings,  Erl.  Ed.,  v,  226; 
xxxiii,  309.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  1 18  sqq.  ;  particularly  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  366 sqq., 
37  '.  379.  326-338-     Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  250  sqq, 

3  Supra,  p.  345. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  445 

of  this  heartfelt  faith  in  God  and  Christ,  which  must  always,  from 
the  nature  of  the  case,  be  imperfect  and  mingled  with  doubt  and 
distrust,  there  is  added  the  divine  imputation  of  righteousness, 
for  Christ's  sake,  when  God,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  in  whom  we 
have  begun  to  believe,  accounts  our  imperfect  faith  as  perfect 
righteousness  ("  is/a  duo  perficiunt  justitiam  Christiana  in,  scilicet 
fides  in  cordo — deinde  quod  Deus  reputat  istani  iniperfectain  fidem 
ad  Justitiam  pejfectani  propter  Chj-istum,''''  etc.).  The  question 
here  arises :  Is  not  faith  thus  made  effectual  as  an  exercise 
entirely  of  man's  own,  although,  indeed,  imperfect,  and  of  itself 
insufficient?  Is  not  human  meiit,  in  such  a  presentation  of  the 
matter,  excluded  only  in  so  far  as  faith,  which  possesses  such 
merit,  is  itself  a  gift  of  God?  But  Luther  now  again  expressly 
rejects  the  conception  in  which,  in  the  process  of  justification, 
faith  comes  into  view  as  a  work  prescribed,  or  exacted,  by  the 
divine  Law,  such  as  love,  obedience,  etc.  Righteousness,  says 
he,  is  attributed  to  Abraham  "  not  working  but  believing — but 
not  to  faith  as  our  work,  but  on  account  of  the  thought  of  God 
{cogitationem  Dei)  which  faith  apprehends."  It  is  to  be  obtained, 
not  through  our  faith  in  itself,  but  "  alone  through  Christ,  and 
not  otherwise."  ' 

Passages  such  as  those  above  cited  are,  however,  in  the  writings 
of  Luther  by  far  overbalanced  by  such  as  present  simply  the 
Object  grasped  by  faith — Christ  as  present  to  faith — as  the  ground 
of  justification.  Simply  and  alone  upon  Him,  and  not  upon  our 
own  faith,  does  Luther  bid  us  look  when  he  would  make  us  certain 
of  our  salvation.  He  has  not,  however,  left  us  any  more  precise 
analysis  or  exposition  of  the  relation  of  the  elements  of  faith 
above  noted  to  one  another.  We  must  content  ourselves  with 
having  called  attention  to  his  actual  utterances,  bearing  now  in 
one,  now  in  the  other  direction. 

If  we  now  return  to  the  habitual  formula  of  Luther,  that  faith 
justifies  on  account  of  its  Object,  we  shall  observe,  as  already 
indicated,  that  this  object  is  described  as  being  not  only  the 
sufferings,  works,  death,  resurrection,  ascension  to  the  Father, 
and  righteousness,  or  merit,''  of  Christ,  but  also,  and  particularly, 
the  person  of  Christ  itself  and  Christ,  as  Himself  truly  present 

'Op.  Ex.,  iii,  301.  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  178.  Tischr.,  Forst.,  ii,  151.  Erl.  Ed., 
Iviii,  353. 

^Cf.  supra,  p.  414. 


446  THE  THEOLOGY   OF  LUTHER. 

in  faith  and  in  the  hearts  of  believers.  But  Christ  is  then,  also, 
as  has  likewise  been  shown,  livingly  and  effectively  present  in  the 
heart  with  His  power.  His  life  and  His  righteousness.  With 
Christ  comes  also  the  Holy  Spirit  to  abide  and  work  continually 
in  the  heart  as  the  principle  of  a  new  moral  course  of  life. 
Here,  again,  we  may  be  inclined  to  ask  :  Is  it  not,  according  to 
this,  taken  into  consideration,  in  forgiveness  and  gracious  accept- 
ance, that  this  new  principle  has  been  implanted,  that  Christ  is 
present  in  the  believer  as  the  power  of  a  new  moral  life,  and  that 
there  is  thus  in  the  believer  himself,  at  least  in  germ,  a  true, 
personal,  practical  righteousness?  We  raise  this  question,  not 
only  because  certain  modern  dogmatic  theories  suggest  it,  but 
because  some  utterances  of  Luther  himself  lead  us  up  to  such  a 
conception,  and,  indeed,  almost  force  it  upon  our  attention.  We 
have  already  heard  him  declare  :  '  "  Faith  justifies,  because  it 
secures  in  answer  to  prayer  {impctraf)  the  spirit  of  love."  Thus 
he  says  also,  in  the  Enarratio  of  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  of  John, 
A.  D.  1521  :  ^  "  The  just  man  lives  by  faith.  How  so?  Because 
faith  in  Christ  at  once  {jnox)  receives  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  sheds 
abroad  love  in  our  hearts  "  ;  and  in  a  Sermon  of  the  same  year :  ' 
"  Faith  saves.  Why?  It  brings  with  it  the  Spirit,  who  does  all 
good  works  with  love  and  delight,"  etc.  Reference  may  also  be 
made  to  the  Preface  of  the  Commentary  upon  Romans}  Must 
we  not  now  interpret  all  the  teachings  of  Luther  in  harmony  with 
this?  To  this  we  must,  despite  the  above  language,  reply  in  the 
negative  ;  and  in  the  fact,  that  such  utterances  no  longer  occur  in 
his  later  writings,  we  recognize  a  further  advance  in  the  doctrinal 
position  of  the  Reformer.  Particularly  must  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that,  according  to  all  his  more  precise  utterances,  the  impartation 
of  the  Spirit,  however  essentially  he  holds  it  to  be  connected 
with  justification,  is  located  after  the  forgiveness  of  sins — not  as 
the  ground,  but  as  the  result  of  the  latter.  He  expressly  rejects 
too,  the  idea,  that  we  are  justified  "  on  account  of  future  works  of 
faith,"  although  he  represents  works  as  flowing  of  necessity  from 
faith.  He  expressly  also,  in  his  contest  against  the  "fides  caritate 
formata,'"  whilst  describing  faith  as  the  mother  of  love  and  of 
virtues  in  general,  guards  himself  against  giving  any  countenance 

^  Vol.  I.,  p.  328.  '^  Jena,  ii,  356  b. 

»  Erl.  Ed.,  XX,  308,  *  Ibid.,  Ixiii,  122  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  447 

to  the  idea  that  the  latter  are  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  com- 
bined with  faith  in  securing  justification.  Nor  does  he  attribute 
justification  to  faith  itself  as  the  germ  from  which  love  and 
virtues  spring,  but  he  would  have  us  ascribe  righteousness  alone 
to  the  mercy  of  Christ  and  His  promise  apprehended  by  faith. 
He  teaches:  "That  faith,  which  apprehends  Christ,  not  that 
which  includes  love,  justifies."  In  commenting  upon  the  declara- 
tions of  Paul  concerning  faith  working  by  love.  Gal.  v.  6,  he  says 
that  Paul  is  here  speaking,  not  of  what  faith  is  nor  how  it  avails 
before  God,  not  of  justification  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  of  the 
Christian  life,  in  which  it  is  indeed  true  that  faith  must  also 
work.'  He  employs  this  passage  also,  thus  interpreted,  in  his 
condemnation  of  the  "  patched  up  "  formula  of  compromise 
which  had  been  presented  at  Regensburg  in  1541  as  a  basis  of 
agreement  between  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  evangelical 
party.  The  question,  by  what  means  man  becomes  righteous 
before  God,  is,  he  there  maintains,  entirely  different  from  the 
question  as  to  what  the  righteous  man  does.  Before  God 
nothing  avails  but  His  Son,  Jesus  Christ.  Christ,  he  then  pro- 
ceeds to  say,  is  apprehended  through  faith  and  embraced  in  the 
heart.  We  are  called  righteous  before  God  for  the  sake  of  His 
Son,  who  dwells  in  our  hearts.^  Of  peculiar  interest  for  us  at  this 
point  are  two  incidents  in  the  intercourse  of  Luther  with  men 
associated  with  him  in  the  work  of  the  Reformation.  Brentz 
had,  in  1531,  raised  the  question,  whether  faith  does  not  justify, 
iiiasiin/ch  as  we  receive  through  it  the  Law-fulfilling  Spiiit.  To 
this,  Melanchthon  replied  :  We  must,  on  the  contrary,  turn  our 
glance  entirely  away  from  our  own  renewal  to  the  promise  and  to 
Christ,  etc.  He  says:  "  By  faith  alone  are  we  righteous  (Justi), 
not  because  it  is  a  root,  as  you  write,  but  because  it  apprehends 
Christ,  for  whose  sake  we  are  accepted."  Upon  this  point,  he 
remarks,  even  Augustine,  upon  whom  Brentz  relies,  does  not  yet 
teach  the  full  truth.  Luther  adds  to  the  manuscript  of  Melanch- 
thon that  he,  too,  conceives  the  matter  as  though  there  were  no 
"  quality  "  whatsoever  in  his  heart  called  faith  or  love,  but  instead 
of  this  he  places  Christ,  and  says  :  "  This  is  my  righteousness. 
He  is  my  quality  and,  as  they  say,  my  formal  righteousness." 

1  Briefe,  iv,  432.  Op.  Ex.,  iii,305.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  135  ;  ii,  323  sq.    Jena, 
i,  570,  565  b. 

2  Briefe,  v,  353  sqq. 


448  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Nor  does  he  regard  Christ  as  a  teacher  or  giver,  but  he  would 
have  Him  Himself  as  the  gift ;  as  Christ  does  not  say,  "  I  give  the 
way,  the  truth  and  the  life,"  but  "  I  am,"  etc.  ///  me,  says 
Luther,  must  He  abide,  live,  speak,  in  order  that  I  may  be  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  Him  (2  Cor.  v.  21),  not  in  love,  nor  in 
subsequent  gifts.'  In  the  year  1536,  Melanchthon  himself  re- 
quested Luther's  opinion  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  Augustine, 
that  we  ought  to  consider  "  ourselves  to  be  righteous  by  faith, 
that  is,  by  our  newness  of  life  "  {novitate).  He  asks  "whether 
you  think  that  a  man  is  righteous  by  this  newness  of  life,  or  by 
the  gratuitous  imputation  which  is  outside  of  us,  and  by  faith, 
/.  e.,  the  confidence  which  springs  frcm  the  Word?"  Luther 
replies  :  "  Thus  I  think,  and  am  fully  persuaded  and  certain  that 
this  is  the  true  sentiment  of  the  Gospel  and  of  the  apostles,  that 
we  are  righteous  before  God  by  gratuitous  imputation  alone." 
When  Melanchthon  further  inquires,  how  the  matter  stands  after 
regeneration — by  what  means  Paul  is  after  his  regeneration 
acceptable  to  God  (/.  e.,  whether  it  be  not,  after  all,  by  the  works 
now  flowing  from  regeneration),  Luther  replies:  "By  no  other 
thing,  but  alone  by  that  regeneration  through  faith,  by  which  he 
was  made  righteous,  does  he  perpetually  remain  righteous  and 
accepted."  He  means  here,  of  course,  that  regeneration  which 
is  effected  in  the  very  act  of  becoming  a  believer  (cf.  sttpra,  as 
to  the  conception  of  regeneration),  and  not  the  new  and  good 
life  of  the  man  himself,  which  appears  only  as  a  result  of  his  faith.-' 
These  declarations  of  Luther,  particularly  that  made  in  his  reply 
to  Brentz,  set  forth  again,  indeed,  most  impressively,  that  Christ, 
upon  whom  justifying  faith  directs  its  gaze,  must  also  be  at  the 
same  moment  already  in  the  heart,  and  that,  too,  already  as  a 
living  and  effectual  power.  An  utterance  from  any  other  lips 
than  those  of  Luther,  associating  the  indwelling  of  Christ  so  imme- 
diately with  faith  as  justifying,  would  scarcely  have  been  approved 
by  later  orthodox  theologians.  And  it  might  now  still  be  asked, 
whether  anythmg  more  is  denied  than  simply  that  the  actual 
unfolding  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  us,  and  our  own  new  spiritual 
deportment  before  God,  are  taken  into  consideration  as  justifying. 
When  the  indwelling  of  Christ  is  thus  insisted  upon,  does  there 

'Corp.  Reform.,  ii,  501  sqq.     Briefe,  iv,  271. 
Tischr.,  Forst.,  ii,  145  sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  347  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  /.,-\i.j 

not  come  into  view  as  justifying  at  least  the  fact  that  Christ,  the 
objective  Reconciler,  is  also,  at  the  same  time,  the  present, 
living  germ  of  the  then  incipient  new  life-development?  But  the 
utterances  of  the  later  Luther  do  not  justify  us  in  any  such  inter- 
pretation— not  even  the  opinion  expressed  to  Brentz,  if  it  be 
carefully  compared  with  other  declarations  of  the  same  period. 
Moreover,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  aim  of  Luther  in  his 
declarations  concerning  justification  is  always  a  practical  one, 
/.  c,  the  comforting  and  assuring  of  the  consciences  of  believers; 
and  this  he  finds  unalterably  based,  however  certainly  Christ  is 
held  to  be  now  within  tlicm,  only  upon  the  objective  Christ  and 
the  Word  of  promise.  The  experience  of  the  indwelling  Christ 
is  a  variable  one.  The  feeling  in  regard  to  Him  changes,  and  the 
fruits  which  flow  from  it  are  always  imperfect.  In  this  sense, 
Luther  says  again  :  "  Christ  is  not  within  me ;  I  do  not  see  Him 
bodily,"  etc'  The  heart  must  look  to  Christ,  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  and  offered  to  us  in  the  Word,  in  order  to  be  sure 
of  righteousness  and  salvation.  The  view  of  Luther  may  there- 
fore be  epitomized  as  follows  :  Faith,  in  order  to  obtain  righteous- 
ness and  the  assurance  of  salvation,  must  look  to  Christ,  as  the 
objective  Reconciler,  presented  to  us  in  the  Word,  and  must 
embrace  {schlicsseii)  Him  in  the  heart,  in  order  that  forgiveness 
of  sins  may  thus  be  effected  for  those  who  believe  ;  and  only 
then  will  Christ,  embraced  in  the  heart,  prove  effectual  in  them 
also  as  the  author  of  a  new  moral  life  and  deportment.  From 
all  the  foregoing  it  may  now  be  clearly  understood  how  Luther 
could  so  earnestly  insist,  upon  the  one  hand,  that  Christ,  with 
His  righteousness,  must  not  remain  outside  of  us,  but  be  in  us ; 
and  yet,  upon  the  other  hand,  just  as  strenuously  maintain  that 
our  righteousness  before  God  must  be  and  remain  a  foreign 
(not  our  own)  righteousness,  that  it  "  is  taken  as  something 
purely  and  entirely  outside  of  us,  and  based  upon  Christ  and 
His  work,"  that  the  Christian  is  righteous  "  by  a  holiness 
from  without  {extrinsica  sanctitate),  that  is,  righteous  by  the 
mercy  and  grace  of  God,"  since  God  for  Christ's  sake  forgives 
his  sins." 

Purely  through  faith,  therefore,  is  man  justified,  according  to 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  253. 

^^  Jena,  i,  543  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  424  sq.  ;  xii,   118.     Op.  Ex.,  xix,  43  sqq. 
29 


45 O  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Luther,  before  he  can  cherish  love  within  his  heart,  or  do  works 
pleasing  to  God.  And  purely  through  faith,  likewise,  is  the  man 
tuho  already  walks  in  the  spirit  of  grace  and  regeneration,  and 
performs  good  works,  to  continue  to  enjoy  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  the  good  pleasure  of  God. 

We  here  again  observe,  that  Luther  in  his  later  days  entirely 
avoided  the  use  of  expressions  such  as  he  had  at  first  employed, 
in  which  the  new  deportment  of  man  himself  was  represented  fs, 
contributing  toward  his  justification.  We  refer  to  those  in  which 
he  had  previously  ascribed  an  efficacy,  in  securing  the  forgiveness 
of  the  sin  yet  remaining  in  the  regenerate,  to  their  own  zeal  and 
spiritual  progress,  or  to  the  beginning  of  purification  already 
effected.'  He  now,  upon  the  other  hand,  bases  the  continuous, 
as  well  as  the  original,  acceptance  as  righteous  simply  upon  the 
"  foreign  "  righteousness  of  Christ  and  upon  the  faith  which  lays 
hold  upon  the  latter.  Of  the  purification  already  begun  he 
declares,  that  it  is  accounted  complete  and  perfect,  not  for  its 
own  sake,  but  because  the  Christian  depends  in  faith  upon  the 
pardon-promising  Word  of  God.^  He  denies  particularly  to  the 
works  and  virtues  which  are  now  actually  manifested  in  the  lives 
of  those  who  believe  and  have  become  righteous  any  validity  of 
their  own  before  God. 

At  all  events,  says  Luther,  the  heart  which  has  experienced  the 
love  of  God  must  itself  also  necessarily  cherish  love  to  God.  The 
believer  must,  as  a  new  creature,  perform  works  by  a  consequent 
and  immutable  necessity  (^necessitate  consequentiae  sen  inimuta- 
tntitatis),  just  as  a  living  fruit-tree  necessarily  produces  fruit,  and 
as  the  sun  shines  by  an  inner  necessity.  Faith  prepares  the 
heart  for  the  fulfilling  of  the  Law,  which  is  accomplished  through 
love.  In  fact,  faith  is  itself  the  doer,  and  love  the  deed.  Since 
Christ  lives  in  us  through  faith,  good  works  can  just  as  little  be 
neglected,  and  are  just  as  necessary,  as  faith  itself.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  Gal.  v.  6,  /.  e.,  we  do  not  at  all  rightly  believe  unless 
the  works  of  love  follow.^     It  is,  therefore,  by  the  manifestation 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  177  sq.,  328,  356.  Cf.  also,  Preface  to  Romans,  in  Erl.  Ed., 
Ixiii,  131. 

*Er].  Ed.,  xlix,  276  sq. 

'Tischr.,  ii,  149.  Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  350;  xlix,  348;  viii,  61  sqq.  ;  xiii,  240; 
xlix,  67  sq.      Comni.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  324.     Briefe,  iii,  375.     Jena,  ii,  519. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  45  I 

of  love  that  we  must  discover  and  prove  where  there  is  true  faith 
in  God  and  Christ.  Only  when  we  can  say,  before  men  and 
before  Ciod,  that  we  have  according  to  our  ability  done  good  in 
love,  can  we  continue  also  in  the  joyous  confidence  of  faith  and 
appear  before  the  judgment-seat.  For  those,  on  the  other  hand, 
who,  without  love  and  a  life  of  innocence,  boast  of  their  faith 
and  their  baptism,  conscience  must,  under  the  assaults  of  the  devil, 
despair  and  faith  fail ;  for  the  devil  will  say  to  them  :  "  How 
can  you  boast  of  faith  and  of  Christ?  You  have  surely  all  your 
life-time  given  no  evidence  of  it"  (such  faith  and  fellowship). 
Yea,  thus  must  even  the  calling  of  the  believer  be  made  sure  by 
the  beginnings  of  the  new  creature  manifested  in  works,  and  thus 
must  faith  itself  be  made  ever  stronger  and  more  immovable 
(2  Pet.  i.  8  and  i  John)  through  the  evidence  of  faith  furnished 
by  works  of  love.  Luther  even  in  one  passage,  when  comment- 
ing upon  Matt.  vi.  14  sq.,  associates  the  readiness  to  forgive  our 
fellowmen,  which  is  a  feature  of  practical  righteousness,  with  the 
sacraments,  through  which  we  attain  assurance  of  grace  and  of 
the  forgiveness  of  our  sins.  We  may,  says  he,  when  doing  such 
work  under  the  impulse  of  (a us)  the  Word  and  the  promise 
which  God  has  attached  to  it,  herein  have  a  sure  evidence  that 
God  is  graciously  inclined  toward  us  ;  and  from  the  consciousness 
of  this  willingness  to  forgive  we  may  conclude  that  we  do  not 
do  such  work  by  nature,  but  have  been  already  transformed  by 
the  grace  of  God.  A  faith  which  at  the  very  last  moment 
accepts  Christ,  without  having  the  opportunity  to  engage  in 
(good)  works,  Luther  regards  as  not,  indeed,  impossible,  but  as 
very  difficult.' 

Yet  justification  itself  must  never  under  any  circumstances  be 
supposed  to  rest  on  the  works  or  the  love  of  the  regenerate.  On 
the  contrary,  Luther  most  strenuously  insists,  that  sin  yet  clings  to 
such  and  to  every  good  work  which  they  perform  ;  that  they  can 
never  by  any  means  render  satisfaction  to  the  violated  command- 
ments of  God  ;  that  their  consciences  always  still  condemn  them, 
even  when  they  have  done  good  according  to  their  ability, 
because  they  have  failed  in  many  more  ways  than  they  themselves 
know.     Hence,  faith  alone  can  here  deal  with  God,  and  works, 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  191  sqq.  ;  xiii,  237  sq.  ;  xix,  2S7  sq.,  383  sqq  ,  402  sq. ; 
xliii,  186  sqq.  Jena,  i,  545  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  259  f  where  Luther  discusses 
the  high  value  of  works,  as  against  the  teachings  uf  the  Anabaptists). 


452  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

or  love,  dare  not  at  all  be  regarded  in  the  case.  We  have  been 
told,  indeed,  that  the  regenerate  may  nevertheless  glory  "  before 
God"  in  view  of  (mit)  his  well-doing;  but  Luther  immediately 
qualifies  this  by  the  explanation  that  this  glorying  "  before  God  " 
is  allowable,  and  that  God  will  Himself  be  a  witness  for  such 
believers  against  all  their  enemies  and  the  devil  on  the  Day  of 
Judgment,  in  order  that  they  may  have  joyous  boldness  ( i  John 
iv.  17) — but  that  this  glorying  does  not  avail  "  against  God,"  or 
"  with  God,"  /.  e.,  "  between  Him  and  me  alone."  When  the 
question  is  as  to  my  relation  to  God  Himself,  or  as  to  my  abiUty 
to  stand  before  Him,  and  not  merely  before  the  world  and  my 
enemies,  then  everything  depends  solely  upon  faith. ^  Luther 
compares  the  relation  of  faith  and  works  to  one  another  to  that 
existing  between  the  divine  and  the  human  natures  of  Christ. 
As  Christ  through  His  divine  nature  alone  is  Christ  and  Lord, 
but  becomes  tangible  to  us  through  the  assumption  of  our  flesh, 
so  faith  is  justifying  as  '^ fides  absoliita  sen  abstracta,'''  and  must 
become  tangible  in  works  as  '■'■fides  concreta,  incarnatay  ''  To 
the  inquiry  of  Melanchthon,  whether  the  righteousness  of  works 
is  necessary  to  salvation,  he  replies  :  "  Not  that  they  effect  or 
secure  {impetrent)  salvation,  but  that  they  are  associated  with,  or 
in  the  presence  of  {^praesentes  sen  corani),  the  faith  which 
secures  it;  just  as  I  am  necessarily  associated  with  [adero)  my  sal- 
vation." ^  So  little  can  the  works  of  the  regenerate  man  justify, 
that,  on  the  contrary,  as  he  is  himself  continuously  righteous 
before  God  only  through  his  faith  and  by  virtue  of  the  divine 
imputation,  so  also  his  virtues  and  works,  defective  in  themselves 
and  polluted  with  sin,  are  pleasing  to  God  only  on  account  of  his 
faith.* 

Yet  the  works  of  the  believer,  or  his  own  right  conduct,  labor 
and  endurance,  do  nevertheless,  according  to  Luther,  receive 
sot/ie  acknowledgment  from  God.  There  are,  that  is  to  say, 
special  rewards  which  God  promises  to  the  righteous  for  their 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  286,  325  sq.  Jena,  i,  542.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  250.  Erl.  Ed.,  xix. 
315  sqq.,  66,  345  ;  xxvi,  297  ;  xii,  177  sq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  202  sq.  Erl. 
Ed.,  xix,  387  sqq.,  391. 

'Briefe,  vi,  432.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  381  sqq. 

''Tischr.,  ii,  151.      Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  353. 

*Tischr.,  ii,  150.     Erl.  Ed.,  Iviii,  350  sq.      Op.  Ex.,  i,  81. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  453 

comfort  and  strengthening,  in  addition  to  the  fact  they  are  already, 
simply  through  their  faith,  in  enjoyment  of  His  grace,  forgiveness 
and  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  These  are  gifts,  in  part,  for  the  life 
that  is  to  come,  but  partly  also  for  the  present  life.  God  can, 
for  example,  make  the  believer  a  great  and  shining  light  already 
in  this  world,  and  may,  in  view  of  his  prayers  and  his  good 
works,  spare  an  entire  nation,  etc.  And  on  the  Day  of  Judgment, 
those  who  have  suffered  and  toiled  abundantly  shall  be  more  glori- 
ously adorned  than  others,  to  shine  as  stars  of  peculiar  brilliancy. 
Works,  therefore,  do  not  justify  the  individual,  but  they  "  inci- 
dentally glorify  the  individual  {personam)  with  sure  rewards." 
We  recall  the  fact,  that  Luther  accords  even  to  the  outward  right- 
eousness of  the  unregenerate  a  certain  outward  and  earthly  reward 
from  the  hand  of  God.'  For  the  special  blessings  which  fall  to 
the  lot  of  the  righteous,  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  use  of  the  term, 
"  merit  "  (  Verdienst).  In  and  of  themselves,  however,  the  works 
of  the  righteous  can  here  also  merit  nothing,  as  they  can  in  any 
event  be  acceptable  to  God  only  on  account  of  faith  and  because 
they  are  performed  in  Christ.  It  is  not  on  account  of  any 
worthiness  of  their  own  that  they  are  so  valuable  as  to  secure  the 
reward  spoken  of,  but  on  account  of  the  promise  which  God  has 
graciously  given  to  strengthen  us.  In  addition  to  salvation  itself, 
the  grace  of  God  and  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
this  adornment  with  peculiar  glory  always  appears  as  something 
coming  from  without,  just  as,  in  the  securing  of  the  fundamental 
blessings  named,  good  works  (although  they  must  flow  from  faith) 
stand  by  the  side  of  faith  only  as  something  external,  contributing 
nothing  to  the  significance  of  the  latter  in  securing  justification. 
All  believers  are  also  (although  differing  as  one  star  differs  from 
another  star  in  glory)  equally,  in  Luther's  view,  acceptable  to 
God  and  loved  by  Him,  since  they  are  all  in  the  same  degree 
righteous  in  the  one  Christ.^ 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  285.     Supra,  p.  356. 

2Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  382,  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  181  sq.;  xlix,  288  (where  Luther 
speaks  of  "  little  crowns");  especially,  xliii,  356-36S  (on  p.  361,  the  R.  Cath, 
doctrine  of  "  premium  essentiale  and  accidentale")  ;  Iviii,  354.     Tischr.,    ii, 

I';2. 


454  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

3.   The   Life  and  Conduct  of  Man  in  the   State  of  Grace, 
a.  General  View  of  the  Life  of  the  Believer  on  Earth. 

PRESENT    blessedness SIN     STILL    CLEAVES DAILY    REPENTANCE 

temptations INWARD    JOY —ASSURANCE    OF    ACCEPTANCE. 

Exercising  a  justifying  faith  in  Christ,  such  as  has  been  above 
described,  behevers  are  already  really  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  very 
highest  blessing  of  salvation.  They  are  "  righteous,  living  and 
blessed  people,"  because  they  have  Christ  as  their  Lord.'  This 
blessing,  moreover,  became  their  possession  already  in  the  bap- 
tism which  they  as  children  received.  We  have  already  learned 
from  declarations  of  Luther  in  regard  to  infant  baptism,  that 
precisely  such  faith  is  implanted  in  children  at  their  baptism  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  a  further  discussion  of  this 
feature  of  the  subject,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  following  chapter. 
Thus,  the  entire  subsequent  faith  of  genuine  Christians  appears 
as  only  an  unfolding  and  new  enkindling  of  that  which  at  their 
baptism  already  made  them  partakers  of  salvation,  and  every 
blessing  which  they  in  faith  enjoy,  as  a  possession  which  was 
really  theirs  from  the  beginning,  but  which  is  now  merely  newly 
apprehended. 

Christians,  says  Luther,  are  already  saved,  so  far  as  their  inner 
life  is  concerned,  in  the  new  birth.  The  attainment  of  salvation 
(^das  Seligiuen/en)  in  the  future,  which  the  Scriptures  promise  to 
those  who  do  good,  signifies  that  their  salvation  {Seligkeit : 
blessedness)  will  be  revealed.  Yea,  the  life  of  a  genuine  Chris- 
tian after  his  baptism  is  nothing  more  than  a  looking  forward  to 
the  revelation  of  the  blessedness  which  he  already  possesses.'-* 
There  exists  here,  as  we  have  learned,  a  true  indwelling  of  Christ 
and  of  the  divine  Spirit.  Christians  are  a  temple  of  God,  their 
hearts  a  throne  of  the  supreme  Majesty.  They  become  "  god- 
like "  {gotfformig) ,  "partakers  of  the  divine  nature" — even 
"deified"  {vergottet).  As  the  nature  of  (jod  is  eternal  truth, 
righteousness,  wisdom,  life,  peace,  joy  and  delight — in  short, 
everything  that  is  good,  so  they  also  receive  everything  good 
— have  eternal  life,  peace  and  joy,  and  are  pure,  righteous  and 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  120.  ■■*  Ibid.,  vii,  174  sq.,  165. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  455 

omnipotent  against  the  devil,  sin  and  death.  Particularly  do 
they  now  possess  and  manifest  the  divine  nature,  in  so  far  as  the 
latter  consists  in  pure  benevolence,  kindness,  etc.  Thus  they  are 
children  of  God.  They  are  so  because  they  have  been  born  of 
God.  They  are  so  in  faith,  which  is  itself  the  divine  birth.^  They 
are  so  in  that  they  have,  through  faith,  become  heirs  of  all  divine 
blessings  (possessions).  Thus  they  are  even  called  by  the  names 
of  God  and  Christ,  being  spoken  of  as  "gods"  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6) 
and  Christians.  Since  the  believer  accepts  Christ,  and  Christ 
interposes /t^r  him,  he  dare  even  say  :  "  I  am  Christ"  ;  the  right- 
eousness, victory,  lite,  etc.,  of  Christ  are  his.  Conversely,  Christ 
will  say  of  the  sinner  who  clings  entirely  to  Him  :  "  I  am  this 
sinner."  Self-righteous  hypocrites,  on  the  other  hand,  say  in  their 
hearts,  "  I  am  Christ,"  in  a  reprehensible  and  impious  sense, 
since  they  ascribe  to  themselves  that  which  belongs  alone  to  God 
and  Christ,  and  desire  to  be  their  own  saviours  and  the  saviours 
of  others.  Christians  are  in  Christ  also  truly  helpers  and  saviours 
of  the  world.  They  are  gods  in  their  relation  to  the  world 
through  love,  in  which  they  exercise  their  divine  nature.  They 
are  kings  and  lords  over  all  things,  so  that  even  the  devil  must, 
in  truth,  serve  them.  With  and  in  these  possessions  and  this 
dignity  of  Christian  believers,  we  find  already  the  fountain  from 
which  flows  constantly,  by  an  inner  necessity,  their  moral  activity 
among  their  fellowmen  and  other  creatures  about  them.  De- 
votedly they  lavish  their  wealth  upon  others,  just  as  the  wealth  of 
divine  blessings  has  been  through  Christ  lavished  upon  them.'^ 

In  this  lofty  and  blessed  state  of  grace  sin,  indeed,  still  ever 
clings  to  the  believer.  Its  crucifixion  has  begun  in  baptism ;  but 
the  old  Adam  is  not  yet  on  that  account  entirely  dead,  but  there 
still  remain  many  traces  of  his  presence.  The  condition  of  the 
Christian  is  like  that  of  the  wounded  man  to  whom  the  good 
Samaritan  ministered ;  /.  e.,  his  wounds  are  bound  up,  the  oil  of 
forgiveness  has  been  poured  upon  them,  but  he  has  not  been 
immediately  restored  to  perfect  health.  Our  sins  will  be  perfectly 
healed  only  when  we  shall  die.     There  yet  remains,   thus,   the 

'  Cf.  supra,  p.  440. 

*  Supra,  p.  428  sq..  367.  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  285  sq.  ;  vii,  159;  1,  253;  li,  219; 
XV,  238;  xl,  129  sqq.  ;  x,  203  sqq  ;  xv,  194.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  247  sqq., 
373  sq-  Jena,  ii,  523  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  287;  xlix,  105  sq;  xiv,  290  ;  xv,  248; 
xxxiv,  197;  xxxv,  133.      Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  415  ;  Vol.  II.,  p.  324. 


456  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

evil  lust  of  original  sin.  This  must,  as  is  argued  at  length  against 
Eck,  and  afterwards  particularly  in  the  Coufiitatio  rationis 
Laiomianae,  even  after  baptism,  in  which  forgiveness  of  it  is 
bestowed,  be  still  acknowledged  as  truly  sin.  For  the  principle 
must  always  be  stoutly  maintained,  that  sin  is  everything  which 
is  not  in  accordance  with  the  divine  Law.  This  sin  is  always  in 
substance  the  same,  even  though  differing  in  degree.  K  sinful 
character,  moreover,  still  attaches  even  to  all  the  good  works 
which  the  Christian  performs  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  thus  sins  even  in  the  doing  of  good,  according  to  Eccl.  vii.  20. 
Every  good  work  may  therefore  even  be  called  sin,  since  it  cer- 
tainly does  not  truly  correspond  with  the  commandments  of  God. 
But  that  which  is  yet  sinful  in  the  good  works  of  the  believer  is, 
for  Christ's  sake,  not  now  charged  as  sin  against  him.  Sin  in 
peculiar  and  general  forms  persists  through  every  stage  of  life. 
We  may  even  say  that  our  life  not  only  sins,  but  is  sin  itself.  And 
the  sense  of  sin  is  yet  deeper  in  Christian  people  than  in  others ; 
for  the  latter,  living  on  in  security,  do  not  allow  the  thought  of 
sin  to  trouble  them.' 

Under  the  consciousness  of  such  persistent  sin,  the  believer  may 
yet  always  find  comfort  in  the  forgiveness  which  was  bestowed 
upon  him  already  in  his  baptism,  which  he  continually  enjoys  in 
Christ,  and  for  the  appropriation  of  which  in  the  future  nothing 
more  is  required  than  faith  in  the  Redeemer.  Thus  we  may  even, 
whilst  saying  on  the  one  hand,  "  Every  Christian  has  sin,"  also 
say,  "  No  Christian  has  sin."  But  as,  in  view  of  this  forgiveness, 
sin  is  already  entirely  blotted  out,  so  must  it  also  be  continually 
more  and  more  fully  obliterated,  in  so  far  as  the  believer  is 
inwardly  cleansed  from  it.  This  the  Holy  Spirit  desires  to  do. 
He  must  still  daily  cleanse  the  wounds,  as  without  His  care  we 
would  again  become  corrupt.  To  this  same  end,  also,  God  works 
upon  us,  particularly  through  mortifications  and  sufferings  of 
various  kinds.  It  is,  moreover,  for  the  very  purpose  of  enabling 
us  to  forsake  sin  and  lead  a  better  life  that  our  sins  have  been 
remitted  and  we  ourselves  taken  into  the  divine  favor. 

The  1-epentanae  of  the  Christian  must  therefore  continue  until 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  141  ;  xv,  50  sq. ;  iii,  357.  Op.  Ex.,  x,  193.  Vol.  I.,  p. 
325,  sq.  ;  Vol,  II.,  p.  348.  Jena,  ii,  406  sqq.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  177  sq.,  286  sq. 
Erl.  Ed  ,  xxiv,  134  sqq. ;  xxv,  142.  Op.  Ex.,  xxii,  404  sq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i, 
275  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  307. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  457 

his  death,  since  he  has  occasion  throughout  his  whole  Hfe  to 
reproach  himself  on  account  of  the  sin  yet  remaining  in  his  flesh. 
The  work  of  baptism  must  be  carried  still  further,  and  continu- 
ously, in  a  daily  cleansing  (sweeping  out)  and  a  continual  decline 
of  sin.  This,  too,  belongs  to  the  idea  and  to  the  nature  of  the 
holiness  which  distinguishes  believers.  They  are  called  a  holy 
nation,  on  account  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  daily  sanctifies  them, 
not  only  through  the  forgiveness  of  sins  secured  for  them  by 
Christ,  but  also  through  the  cleansing  and  slaying  of  remaining 
sin.  To  this  condition  Christians  can  actually  attain,  and  they 
do  really  attain  to  it,  if  they  only  do  not  themselves  wantonly 
devote  themselves  again  to  sin.  The  "  head  and  life  of  sin  "  are 
slain  already  in  conversion  and  baptism.  True  Christians,  how- 
ever sin  may  yet  stir  within  them,  are  therefore  no  longer  subject 
to  it,  but  rule  over  it.  Whenever  it  stirs,  they  stop  to  reflect, 
recall  the  divine  Word,  strengthen  their  resolution  by  their  faith 
in  the  forgiveness  granted  them,  and  thus  resist  the  sin.  Their 
condition  is  like  that  of  ancient  Israel,  when  the  kings  of  Canaan 
had  all  been  slain,  and  there  were  left  to  annoy  them  only  the 
conquered  and  discontented  remnant  of  the  Canaanites.  Whereas 
the  non-Christian  lives  under  the  bondage  (in  the  prison)  of  sin, 
the  Christian  has  yet  to  do  only  with  a  captive  sin.  Christ  has 
fettered  it,  that  it  may  no  longer  impel  or  entice  the  believer  to 
evil ;  and  if  it  now  seeks  to  entice  him,  he  says  :  You  pipe  very 
sweetly  for  me,  and  would  like  me  to  do  evil,  etc.,  but  I  propose 
to  trample  all  such  things  under  my  feet.  The  regenerate  man 
is  therefore  still  called  "  flesh,"  but  only  in  view  of  the  remnants 
of  the  flesh  which  still  war  within  him  against  the  first-fruits  of 
the  Spirit.'  And  as  sin  must  be  ever  more  and  more  fully  driven 
out,  so  must  the  forces  and  virtues  of  the  Spirit  continually  gain 
in  strength.  The  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  can,  from  their  very 
nature,  never  rest  in  repose.  They  increase  continually  in  those 
who  use  them  aright,  or,  when  misused,  continually  diminish.  It 
is  in  this  sense  that  we  are  to  understand  the  words  of  the 
Saviour  :  "  To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given."  Thus  the  Christian 
life  as  a  whole  is  a  constant  activity — a  constant  progress — from 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  395.  Op.  Ex.,  xix.,  43.  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  235  sq.  ;  xvi,  141, 
103.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  226  sq.,  351  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  135;  xvi,  104  sq.  Vol. 
I.,  p.  397.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  353  sq.  Supra,  p.  441.  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  15 1  sq., 
170;  xlvii,  48.     Jena,  ii,  41S  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  29.     Jena,  iii,  219  b. 


458  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

vices  to  virtues  and  from  one  virtue  to  another.  He  who  is  not 
always  engaged  in  such  a  course  of  advancement  is  no  Christian. 
The  life  of  the  believer  is  not  a  fixed  condition  ( IVeseji),  but  a 
becoming  {ein  IVerden).  '■^Christianus  non  est  in  facto,  sed  in 
fieriy  In  one  view  of  his  life,  he  is,  it  is  true,  already  in  heaven. 
Just  because  he  strives  to  enter  it,  God  regards  him  as  though  he 
were  already  there.  His  name  is  recorded  among  the  citizens  of 
heaven,  and  he  has  his  walls  and  conversation  there  in  praver, 
faith,  the  divine  Word,  the  sacraments,  etc.  But,  regarded  from 
another  point  of  view,  he  is  still  only  striving  to  enter  heaven, 
and  he  who  thinks  himself  already  there  shall  never  enter.  "  The 
conclusion  of  the  matter  is,  that  we  must  go  forward,  and  not 
stand  still,  nor  lie  down  and  snore."  ' 

God  works  also,  as  we  have  learned,  especially  through  crosses 
and  sujfcrings  for  the  purification  and  spiritual  advancement  of 
His  people.  This  brings  to  our  view  again  the  "  penalty  "  [Pcin) 
which,  in  connection  with  repentance,  must  contiime  until  death, 
and  which  God  still  imposes  upon  true  believers.'  Under  this 
heading  are  to  be  classed  particularly  those  inward  assanits  of 
temptation  in  which  the  Christian  is  often  made  to  feel  as  though 
the  grace  of  God  had  forsaken  him.  The  face  of  God  is  turned 
away  from  him.  He  feels  himself  abandoned  of  God.  He 
beholds  naught  but  wrath  and  terrors.  He  is,  according  to  the 
emotions  of  his  heart,  actually  in  death  and  in  hell.'^  This  is  the 
heaviest  "  penaltv,"  and  this,  too,  the  sorest  temptation.  The 
spirit  of  impious  murmuring  is  aroused  in  his  heart,  so  that  he 
feels  angry  with  God  for  not  giving  him  deliverance.  It  is  the 
devil  who  brings  him  into  this  terrible  condition  by  hurling  fiery 
darts  into  his  heart ;  but  it  is  God  who  sends  such  trials  through 
the  agency  of  the  devil.*  Under  such  pains  and  conflicts  lAither 
had  himself  groaned.  In  the  endurance  of  them,  the  great  .saints, 
Abraham,  Jacob,  Job,  David  and  Paul,  were  compelled  to  lead 
the  wav.  Christ  tasted  them  to  the  very  dregs.^  That  we 
vet  experience  them  is  a  result  of  our  sins.  We  feel  therein  the 
divine  wrath,  which  is  visited  only  upon  sin.  The  assaults  of 
Satan  derive  their  power  from  the  Law,  which  discovers  to  us 
our  present  sins.     Even  Christ  suffered  thus  also  under  the  burden 

1  Briefe,  1,487.  Eil.  Ed.,  xxiv,  73;  xlvi,  156.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii.  315. 
Jena,  iv,  343. 

2  \'ol.  I.,  pp.  241,  252.     'Ibid.,  p.  58.     *  Supra,  p.  290sqq.     ^  Ibid.,p.  402sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  459 

of  sins,  inasmuch  as  He  had  taken  ours  upon  Himself.  All  this 
must,  however,  not  be  understood  as  implying  that  those  who  are 
most  grievously  assailed  by  such  temptations  are  therefore  to  be 
considered  as  the  greatest  sinners,  nor  that  the  magnitude  of  these 
spiritual  trials  in  any  case  would  justify  the  conclusion  that  the 
general  status  of  the  believer  thus  assailed  must  at  least  be  pecu- 
liar low  and  weak.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  already  declared 
that  it  is  only  by  the  Christian,  or  regenerate  man,  that  sin  is 
properly  realized.  It  is  precisely  those  Christians  who  have 
already  attained  a  high  standard  of  Christian  character,  /.  e.,  the 
"  lofty  saints  of  Cod,"  who  are,  in  the  providence  of  Cod,  most 
frequently  assailed,  alarmed  and  filled  with  fears.  "  It  befalls 
only  such  as  already  have  a  strong  faith  and  spirit,  leading  also 
a  blameless  life,  doing  much  good  and  enduring  much,  so  that 
they  have  no  cause  to  fear  the  face  of  man."  Others  could  not 
endure  such  cuffs. 

But  why  does  God  impose  upon  believers  of  this  class,  and 
upon  them  only,  such  special  trials?  Because  they,  too,  need  to 
be  put  to  the  test  by  terrors  and  distress,  to  prove  whether  they 
really  believe  and  love.  It  is  particularly  necessary  for  them  to 
be  guarded  against  presumption,  and  frequently  most  profoundly 
humiliated,  in  order  that,  possessing  as  they  do  a  peculiar  measure 
of  divine  grace  and  blessing,  they  may  not  again  learn  to  depend 
upon  themselves.  There  must  yet  be  thoroughly  slain  within 
them  their  own  righteousness,  the  flesh,  and  their  own  reason. 
They  must  constantly  learn  anew  and  more  thoroughly  to  seek 
real  comfort  only  in  Christ,  His  Word  and  the  sacraments :  and 
through  the  temptations  which  they  thus  endure  God  will  grant 
them  the  greater  courage  and  strength.  They  thus  learn,  also,  to 
discover  and  experience  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  within,  and 
then  only  become  really  full  of  the  Spirit.  Finally,  it  is  also  as 
an  example  for  others  that  God  permits  them  to  pass  through 
such  trying  experiences — as  a  warning  for  the  unconcerned  and 
impenitent,  who  may  be  thus  led  to  consider  how  they  could 
endure  the  trial  if  such  distress  were  to-  befall  them ;  and  as  a 
consolation  for  other  distressed  consciences,  who  thus  see  that 
God  has  similarly  afflicted  even  the  best  saints.  God  will,  more- 
over, grant  His  saints  all  the  assistance  which  they  may  need  to 
endure  all  such  assaults.  Christ  has  made  these  sufferings  harm- 
i:ss,  and  even  beneficial, for  them.     God  does  not  suffer  His  own 


460  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

to  be  tempted  above  what  they  are  able  to  bear  (i  Cor.  x.  13). 
Christ  will  come  again  to  them,  and  cause  His  light  to  arise  upon 
them.  They  shall  now  learn  from  their  own  experience  how 
powerful  is  He,  the  Vanquisher  of  sin  and  death.  Thus  they  are 
to  be  thoroughly  convinced  that,  even  when  they  are  oppressed 
with  the  sense  of  divine  wrath  and  of  abandonment  by  God,  His 
grace  is  still  unrecalled,  and  that  God,  in  truth,  is  especially 
present  with  them  in  these  very  trials — that  they  are  being 
chastened  in  mercy.'  We  have  already  remarked  that  Luther 
would  not  have  us,  in  view  of  such  considerations,  call  in  question 
the  reality  of  the  divine  wrath.'-  This  wrath  is  actually  visited 
upon  them,  inasmuch  as  they  still  are  sinful.  But  the  profound- 
est  sentiment  underlying  the  disposition  and  dealings  of  God  with 
them,  as  those  whom  He  has  accepted  as  members  of  Christ,  is 
still,  although  they  now  for  a  season  do  not  realize  it,  His  burning 
love.  He  is  doing  His  "  strange  work,"  in  order  thereby  to 
accomplish  His  "  own  work."  They  should  meanwhile,  even 
without  feeling,  if  need  be,  cling  to  His  Word  of  grace.  And 
although,  in  other  respects,  they  are  just  like  lost  sinners,  they 
should  still,  just  as  God  is  still  graciously  inclined  toward  them, 
likewise  also  "maintain  kindly  feelings  {Giinst)  toward  God," 
and  be  careful  only  that  they  do  not  forget  to  render  praise  and 
glory  to  Him.  They  may  and  should  thus  confront  the  devil 
with  the  bold  assertion  :  "  After  all,  it  is  not  death  and  wrath ; 
after  all,  it  is  paternal  discipline."  Thus  they  may,  without  long 
parley,  banish  many  distressing  thoughts,  just  as  we  allow  the  birds 
to  do  no  more  than  fly  over  our  heads.'' 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  without  difficulty  the 
utterances  of  Luther  concerning  the  I'lissful  feelings  -vihxch.  mark 
the  life  of  the  true  believer — in  how  far  they  properly  belong  to 
Christian  life,  and  how  far,  on  the  other  hand,  we  must  renounce 
them,  and,  in  direct  opposition  to  our  own  feelings,  hold  fast  to 
our  faith  in  the  grace  of  God.^  AVe  have  been  told  '"  that  faith 
must  feel  the  truth  of  the  divine  Word.     Our  own  heart  and 

'  Supra,  p.  402  sq.  '  Supra,  p.  290  sqq. 

^  Cf.,  besides  a  multitude  of  similar  utterances,  especially  in  the  letters  of  the 
Reformer,  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  249  sqq.,  305  sq. ;  xvii,  50  sqq.,  57;  iii,  277-284; 
ix,  90-99.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  19  sqq.  ;  ix  90  sqq.  ;  xxxix,  44  sqq. ;  xxxiv,  20I  sqq.; 
xxxvii,  350  sq.  ;  xlix,  194.  sqq.  ;  xli,  68;   xix,  401.      Supra,  p.  336. 

♦  Supra,  pp.  430,  443.  5  Ibid.,  p.  430. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  46  I 

conscience  must  feel  that  we  are  also  numbered  among  the  smful, 
who,  as  such,  can  be  saved  only  by  grace.  Enlightened  and 
enflamed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  must  feel  how  God  loved  the 
world  and  gave  His  own  Son.  And,  finally,  every  separate  indi- 
vidual must  feel  also  the  grace  and  forgiveness  which  have  been 
individually  bestowed  upon  him.  Christ,  the  Good  Samaritan, 
pours  upon  me  the  oil  of  His  grace,  so  that  I  feel  that  His  strong 
right  arm  is  beneath  me.  This  gives  me  an  inner  sense  of 
supreme  happiness.  Every  one  must  examine  himself,  and 
observe  whether  he  also  feels  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  experiences  in 
himself  the  voice  of  the  Spirit,  crying  Abba,  Father.  He  must 
be  joyously,  and  without  wavering,  assured  in  his  conscience  of 
his  adoption  and  his  salvation.  Even  though  there  be  yet  a  strife 
within,  since  he  experiences  God  also  as  an  angry  Judge,  yet  this 
child-like  confidence  must  at  length  prove  triumphant.  We  then, 
because  thus  highly  esteeming  the  Word  of  God,  feel  also  the 
presence  of  Christ  and  of  the  holy  angels  in  our  hearts.  And  just 
because  our  heart,  enflamed  by  the  Spirit,  feels  the  love  of  God, 
it  then  itself  begins  to  love.  We  must  know  and  experience  also, 
in  regard  to  our  own  faith,  that  it  is  a  faith  awakened  within  us 
by  God.  We  must  feel  it,  also,  in  that  it  manifests  itself  in  our 
life.'  Nevertheless,  it  still  remains  true,  that,  just  as  soon  as  faith 
in  the  objective  Word  of  forgiveness  is  awakened  by  the  Spirit, 
who  makes  the  preaching  of  the  Word  efficacious,  we  have  really 
made  forgiveness  our  own,  even  though  we  do  not  then  at  once, 
nor  at  all  times,  enjoy  the  blissful  feeling  of  personal  forgiveness.^ 
Indeed,  in  the  spiritual  temptations  above  spoken  of,  the  recipient 
of  grace  must  experience  directly  the  opposite.  Of  the  condition 
of  such  a  soul  Luther  speaks  with  very  special  earnestness  for  the 
instruction  and  encouragement  of  believers.  In  such  a  case,  he 
asserts,  we  should  believe  even  without  feeling,  and  in  spite  of 
that  which  is  felt  at  the  time.  To  this  extent,  faith  is  "  insensi- 
bility." The  believer  must  here,  without  murmuiing,  be  content 
to  know  that  God  is  good,  even  though  he  should  never  experi- 
ence that  goodness.  He  must  not  judge  according  to  his  own 
feeling,  but  simply  hold  himself  to  the  Word  and  cling  to  it.  •  He 

'  Briefe,  iii,  355.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  74;  xiv,  16  sq.  ;  vii,  275,  326;  xii,  260 ; 
xlvi,  163;  xxix,  334;  xii,  250  sq. ;  xi,  185;  xii,  260 ;  xvi,  74;  xix,  403. 
Briefe,  vi,  20. 

-  Cf.  supra,  p.  443 ;  Vol.  I.,  p.  180  sq. 


462  THE   THEOLOGY   OK    LUTHER. 

must  thus,  even  when  he  most  deepl}'  feels  his  sins,  yet  say  :  I 
have  the  forgiveness  of  my  sins.  He  must  look  only  upon  Christ, 
and,  at  least  in  weakness,  believe  in  Him,  and  hold  to  Him,  who 
says:  "Be  of  good  cheer;  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."'  The 
first-cited  utterances  of  Luther,  in  regard  to  the  origination  of 
faith  in  an  awakened  state  of  the  heart  and  feelings,  are  not  con- 
tradicted by  the  views  here  presented.  He  promises  to  the 
believer,  after  such  assaults  shall  have  been  endured,  and  through 
their  very  instrumentalit}',  more  exalted  experience  of  blessedness 
and  new  and  firmer  assurance  of  acceptance.  Those  who  endure 
shall  feci  the  comfort  of  divine  love  and  certainty  shed  abroad 
in  (poured  into)  their  hearts.^  To  the  expression  above  quoted, 
"  even  though  he  should  never  experience  the  goodness  of  God," 
he  at  once  adds,  "  which  is,  however,  impossible."  ^  The  child- 
like confidence  must,  as  we  have  heard,  at  length  prove  triumphant. 
In  harmony  with  all  the  above  is  the  reply  which  Luther  gives 
to  the  question.  Whether  and  ho7v  the  Christian,  when  living  in 
the  state  of  grace,  may  and  should  he  certain  of  this  grace,  and 
hence  of  His  eternal  salvation.  Luther  is  horrified  that  the  Pope 
"  should  have  entirely  prohibited  the  certainty  and  assurance  of 
divine  grace."  *  That  God  is  graciously  disposed  toward  me,  as 
a  believer,  is  already  made  perfectly  certain  by  the  very  fact,  that 
He  graciously  offers  to  me  in  Christ  forgiveness  and  life,  and 
makes  this  for  me  dependent  upon  nothing  else  whatsoerer  but 
simply  upon  my  faith.  In  connection  with  faith,  all  my  works 
are  also  pleasing  in  His  sight — as  proper,  good  and  Christian 
fruits.  And  when  He  Himself  desires  me  to  believe  in  Him  and 
in  His  Word,  that  which  He  would  have  me  believe  is  precisely 
this — that  I  have  in  Him  a  gracious  God,  and  that  I,  with  my 
works,  am  an  object  of  His  good  pleasure.  I  am  to  believe  that 
Christ  has  suffered  for  us.  I  am  to  lay  hold  with  firm  confidence 
upon  the  Word  of  the  Gospel.  I  am  particularly  to  be  certain 
that  the  word  of  absolution,  which  pledges  forgiveness  to  me 
individually,   is   the  Word  of  God.^     I   am   to  be  fully  assured 

1  %x\.  Ed.,  i,  62;  xii,  271  sq. ;  xlv,  229  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  280.  Eriefe,  iii, 
532  sq.      ErI.  Ed.,  xii,  270,  308  sq. ;   xiv,  270;  xlvii,  324  sq. ;  xi,  198  sq. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  281,  299 ;  xiv,  220;  xlix,  196  sqq.  ^  Ibid.,  xlv,  230. 

<Vol.  I.,p.  53. 

■''Ibid.,  p.  259  sqq.  For  further  expansion  of  this  thought,  see  the  follow- 
ing chapter. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW,  463 

that,  since  I  am  now  in  Christ  and  cleansed  from  sin  by  faith,  my 
life  is  also  pleasing  to  God.  Moreover,  of  the  fact  that  I  so 
believe,  I  may  and  should  now  be  certain.  Luther  does  not  dis- 
countenance, but  even  encourages,  this  reflection  of  the  Christian 
consciousness  upon  its  own  condition  and  its  own  faith.  He 
quotes  with  approval  the  saying  of  Augustine  :  "  Any  one  sees 
lis  faith  very  certainly,  if  he  has  any."  Similarly,  I  should  also 
be  entirely  certain  that  I  have  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  support  of  the 
position  that  the  Christian  may  and  should  be  certain  of  this,  he 
appeals  to  the  "  inner  witness  "  of  which  Paul  speaks  in  Gal.  iv.  6. 
He  teaches,  further,  that  we  may  infer  our  possession  of  the 
Spirit  from  the  facts,  that  we  now  gladly  hear  of  Christ,  thank 
Him,  acknowledge  Him  in  our  words  and  works,  perform  our 
duty  cheerfully,  no  longer  find  pleasure  in  sin,  etc' 

But  we  must  now  again  take  into  consideration  the  spiritual 
temptations  and  infirmities  which  beset  especially  the  saints  of 
God.  Under  stress  of  these,  we  feel,  indeed,  only  an  extremely 
weak  faith  within  us.^  The  Spirit  still,  assuredly,  intercedes  for 
us  with  groanings  that  cannot  be  uttered ;  but  we  hear  no  longer 
the  voice  of  the  Spirit,  and  it  seems  to  us  that  our  groaning 
cannot  pierce  the  clouds.  Here  again  Luther  reminds  those  thus 
sorely  tempted,  that  they  still  gladly  hear  the  Word,  desire  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel,  etc. ;  and  he  adds,  we  still  feel,  to  some 
degree,  our  own  weak  groaning  of  spirit.  But  here,  too,  is  again 
presented  most  earnestly,  as  of  the  first  importance,  the  admoni- 
tion that  we  simply  lay  hold  directly  upon  the  objective  Word  of 
grace.  We  have  here,  says  he,  the  Word  alone.  Just  because  Ave 
lay  hold  upon  it,  we  groan  in  spirit.  We  must  not  look  upon  our 
own  imperfection,  but  upon  the  God  Himself  who  extends  to  us 
the  promise,  and  upon  the  Mediator,  Christ.  He  refers  us, 
further,  to  the  power  of  the  keys,  to  the  sacraments,  and,  in 
general,  to  the  countless  evidences  of  loving-kindness  which  God 
has  lavished  upon  us.  Thus,  amid  all  assaults  of  temptation,  there 
yet  stands  fast  for  us  the  certainty  of  salvation ;  and  we  should, 
therefore,  also  ever  seek  to  rise  again  to  a  firm  and  joyous  personal 
assurance  of  it.^ 

1  Cf.,  supra,  p.  451.  '^Cf.,  supra,  p.  428, 

•■' Cf.,  particularly  Comm.   ad  Gal.,  ii,   161-181.     Further,  e.g.,  Op.  Ex., 

xvi,  197   sq.  ;  xiv,  242;  xi,  295.     Erl.    Ed.,  vii,  98;  xliv,    123   sqq. ;  xlix, 

284  sq. ;   xxxi,  286. 


464  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

The  words  of  Eccl.  ix.  i,  to  which  ^  the  Papists  appealed: 
"  No  man  knoweth  whether  he  is  worthy  of  love  or  hatred," 
I.uther  had,  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Church  Postils'^  still  ex- 
plained as  meaning  that  it  is,  at  all  events,  uncertain  at  least 
whether  any  man  will  in  the  future  be  worthy  of  grace,  /.  <?., 
whether  he  will  endure  under  the  assaults  of  temptation.  He 
afterwards  ■'  no  longer  regards  them  as  referring  at  all  to  the  love 
or  favor  of  God  toward  us,  but  to  the  gratitude  or  ingratitude 
which  we  have  to  expect  from  the  world.  "  Although  one  may 
have  done  all  things  as  well  as  possible,  he  yet  does  not  know 
whether  he  may,  by  this,  his  diligence  and  fidelity,  gain  the  hatred 
or  the  favor  of  his  fellowmen."  Whether  the  Christian,  who 
may  and  should  be  now  certain  of  his  gracious  state,  shall  con- 
tinue in  Christ,  and  thus  also  in  grace,  remains,  indeed,  according 
ta  Luther,  an  open  question  :  for  he  who  now  standeth  must 
always  take  heed  lest  he  fall.*  Although  the  Christian  should  be 
sure  that  he  is  now  a  child  of  God  and  a  partaker  of  salvation,  it 
is  yet  uncertain  and  a  matter  for  serious  concern  whether  he  shall 
remain  a  child  and  maintain  his  position,  and  hence  he  must  yet 
ever  walk  in  fear.  This  declaration  is  maintained  even  in  the 
later  editions  of  the  Church  Postils,  although  they  in  the  same 
section  omit  the  original  comment  upon  Eccl.  ix.  i.^  Yet  the 
Christian  should  still,  according  to  Luther,  cherish  a  firm  confi- 
dence that  God,  so  far  as  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  believer 
depends  upon  Him,  desires  that  it  be  secured  in  Christ.  If  he  is 
nevertheless  finally  lost,  he  must  regard  it  as  entirely  his  own 
fault,  because  he  has  failed  to  abide  with  Christ  and  secure  ever 
renewed  forgiveness  in  the  Word  of  His  grace.  To  the  question, 
in  how  far  the  thought  of  a  foreknowledge  of  God,  an  eternal 
predestination,  an  absolute,  arbitrary  divine  will,  lying  concealed 
behind  the  Word  of  grace  and  withholding  from  us  future  assist- 
ance, might  still  disturb  the  confident  outlook  of  the  believer 
toward  the  future  and  the  end  of  life,  we  have  already  heard  the 
habitual  reply  of  Luther.  It  appeared  to  him  impossible  to 
remove  the  difficulties  which  reason  here  suggests.  But,  in  his 
practical  admonitions,  he  sought    to    show  how  one   may  and 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  53.  '  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  243,  note. 

'  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,   178  sq.  *  Infra,  p.  465  sqq. 

^Briefe,  ii,  276  sq.      Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  243. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  465 

should,  without  the  ofificious  intermeddling  of  reason,  in  direct 
apprehension  of  Christ  and  His  means  of  grace,  be,  until  the  very 
end  of  life,  sure  of  his  predestination  and  eternal  salvation. 

We  have  thus  reviewed,  in  a  general  way,  the  course  of  life 
which  distinguishes  the  baptized,  believing  Christian.  We  must 
now  examine  more  carefully  the  relation  in  which  such  a  life  con- 
tinues to  stand  toward  sin ;  and  then,  still  further,  must  observe 
the  postive  moral  conduct,  in  which  its  new  inner  character  must 
be  manifested  and  developed. 

b.  Life  of  the  Believer  in  its  Relation  to  Sin. 

SIN    OF    BELIEVERS SINS    OF    WEAKNESS    AND    OF    DELIBERATION SIN 

AGAINST  THE  HOLY  GHOST TRIUMPHANT  EXPERIENCE  OF  GRACE. 

Sin  yet  clings  to  the  Christian  believer.  Not  only  do  evil  lusts, 
which  he  can  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  withstand,  yet  stir  within 
him  and  pollute  even  the  fruits  borne  by  the  new  life  which 
springs  from  fellowship  with  Christ ;  but,  despite  the  presence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  he  yet  often  falls  into  sin.  He  would  not  fall  if 
he  would  always  obey  the  Spirit ;  but  that  is  impossible  for  him, 
since  the  devil  is  too  strong,  the  world  too  evil,  and  our  flesh  and 
blood  too  weak.^ 

Every  sin,  moreover,  which  the  Christian  commits  after  becom- 
ing a  believer  is  truly  sin.  God  hates  it.  Every  such  sin  is,  in 
its  actual  character,  a  mortal  sin.  Though  one  may,  indeed,  be 
greater  than  another,  yet  even  the  lighter  offences  are  too  great 
and  grievous  for  us  to  bear.  In  truth,  we  cannot  sufficiently 
comprehend  the  magnitude  of  any  sin.  We  should  be  utterly 
unable  to  endure  them,  if  we  were  to  properly  see  and  feel  their 
enormity.  Our  consolation  must  always  be  found  in  the  grace  of 
God  alone ;  and  the  difference  between  venial  and  mortal  sins 
lies  not  in  the  different  nature  (^Substanz)  of  the  deeds  them- 
selves, but  in  difference  in  the  persons  committing  them,  since 
forgiveness  is  granted  to  him  who  believes  on  Christ.^ 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  their  origin,  the  sins  which  are  still  com- 
mitted by  the  regenerate  are  of  two  kinds.     The  first  class  are 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  72  sq. 

2  Comm.  ad  Gal  ,  iii,  24  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  74  ;  xlvi,  1 20. 
30 


466  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

those  in  which  one  is  in  his  7veakness  suddenly  overtaken  and 
overpotvered  by  evil,  so  that  he  allows  a  profane  oath  to  escape  his 
lips,  or  commits  some  other  wrong  deed ;  or  that,  at  least,  some 
sinful  passion  rises  in  his  heart,  such  as  thirst  for  revenge  upon 
one  who  has  injured  him.  Sins  which  originate  in  such  sudden 
provocations,  and  by  which  we  are  thus  overtaken,  are  "  sins  of 
ignorance."  They  do  not  obliterate  faith.  The  believer  at  once 
struggles  against  such  sins,  repents  of  them,  and  finds  in  faith 
forgiveness.  The  case  is  different  if  he  knowingly  and  volun- 
tarily, with  an  evil  purpose,  does  wrong  and  acts  against  God,2i% 
e.  g.,  in  the  committing  of  adultery.  We  are  every  day  overtaken 
by  sins  of  the  first  class ;  but,  according  to  Luther,  the  Christian 
is  yet  always  liable  to  be  betrayed  into  sins  of  the  second  class 
also.  It  is  noticeable,  indeed,  that  Luther's  portraiture  of  these 
two  classes  of  sins  is  somewhat  vacillating.  We  find  him,  e.  g., 
at  one  time  '  including  David's  adultery  among  the  sins  com- 
mitted in  ignorance,  inasmuch  as  David,  although  conscious, 
indeed,  of  the  wrong  that  he  was  committing,  yet,  impelled  by 
the  devil  and  evil  lust,  did  not  properly  consider  the  character  of 
the  deed.  The  distinction  between  such  sins  and  the  daily 
involuntary  sinful  impulses  is  always,  however,  clearly  maintained. 
When  sins  of  the  second  class  are  committed,  the  Holy  Spirit 
departs  from  the  fallen  Christian  ;  for  He  cannot  abide  where 
the  devil  dwells.  The  unfaithful  Christian  falls  again  under  the 
wrath  of  God.  He  remains,  if  he  be  not  again  uplifted,  under 
eternal  condemnation.  Nor  dare  we  say  in  such  a  case  :  No 
fall  can  in  any  event  injure  him  who  has  once  been  chosen  of 
God,  but  he  remains  always  in  (the  state  of)  grace.  On  the 
contrary,  we  must  here  again  look  entirely  away  from  the  mystery 
of  the  eternal  election,  and  hold  simply  to  the  Word  of  God,  in 
which  He  beyond  all  question  reproves  all  sins.  It  is  enough  for 
us  to  know  that  he  who  finally  perseveres  in  repentance  and  faith 
is  certainly  one  of  the  elect.  Luther  maintains  this  position  with 
great  earnestness,  in  opposition  to  the  reckless  spirits  then  so 
numerous,  who  held  that  no  sin  could  further  injure  him  who  had 
once  become  a  believer  in  Christ,  or  that,  if  one  should  sin  after 
his  profession  of  faith,  it  would  prove  that  he  did  not  really  have 
the  Holy  Spirit  or  true  faith.     Yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  con- 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  149.     On  the  other  hand,  Briefe,  v,  40-42. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  467 

stantly '  re-asserts  the  principle,  that  faith  itself  is  no  longer 
present  in  and  with  sin  voluntarily  committed — maintaining  this 
particularly  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic  conception  of 
faith.  Faith,  he  insists,  cannot  exist  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  no 
longer  present — where  there  is  no  repentance,  and  hence  also  no 
forgiveness  of  sins,  which  faith  always  receives.  Even  a  slight 
wound  of  the  conscience  may  very  easily  cast  away  faith  and  the 
calling  of  God." 

But  for  sins  of  both  kinds  there  still  is,  and  remains,  with 
Christ  forgiveness.  The  unavoidable  daily  evil  impulses  and  sins 
of  infirmity  are  embraced  in  the  "  general  i^gemeine)  forgiveness." 
They  "  vanish  in  the  Lord's  Prayer."  As  I  daily  commit  such 
sins,  I  should  also  daily  seek  cleansing  from  them  by  recurring  to 
my  ever-valid  baptism  and  by  the  use  of  God's  Word,  absolution, 
etc.  But  for  sins  of  the  second  class  also,  a  return  is  still  possi- 
ble— a  return  to  repentance,  to  faith,  to  forgiveness.  God  then 
again  fully  accepts  the  one  thus  converted  from  his  error.  There 
is  no  measure  nor  limit  to  the  divine  kingdom  of  forgiveness. 
Luther  emphatically  rejects  the  opinion  of  the  Novatians,  that 
after  baptism  no  mortal  sin  can  be  forgiven  upon  earth.  He 
cites  against  them  the  doctrine  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  The 
passages,  Heb.  x.  26  sq.  and  vi.  4  sq.,'  upon  which  they  rely,  he 
interprets  as  merely  declaring  that  he  who,  deserting  Christ,  seeks 
to  find  another  way  to  heaven  shall  never  reach  his  goal.* 

We  have  already  observed  that  Luther's  conception  of  mortal 
sill  is  such  as  to  leave  the  way  still  open  for  a  return  to  the  state 
of  forgiveness.  Sins  of  the  second  class  above  described  are  all 
regarded  as  mortal — "  if  any  one  with  a  kind  of  presumption, 
knowingly,  deliberately,  voluntarily  offends  and  despises  the 
threatenings  of  God."  They  are  not,  as  yet,  altogether  the  same 
as  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  we  shall  presently 
speak,  although  not  far  removed  from  it.^     Elsewhere,  he  under- 

'Vol.  I.,  p.  327. 

''Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  124  sq.;  xix,  74;  xliii,  III  sq.  Briefe,  v,  40  sqq.  Erl. 
Ed.,  XXV,  135  sq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  321.  Erl.  Ed.,  1,  58.  Op.  Ex.,  iv, 
227  sq. 

^  Vid.  p.  246  sq. 

♦Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  19;  xliii,  1.  c,  xxvii,  442;  1,  406  sq. ;  xi,  267.  Briefe,  v, 
1.  c.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  179,  xviii,  237  sq. ;  xliv,  120  sqq.  ;    126  sq. 

^Op.  Ex.,  x,  360. 


468  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Stands  by  mortal  sin,  more  precisely,  boasting  of  one's  own  right- 
eousness in  contrast  with  the  mercy  of  God,  yielding  to  despair 
under  the  sense  of  sin,  and  thus,  in  general,  resistance  of  the 
grace  of  God — in  such  cases  identifying  it  with  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Yet  even  here  he  still  admits  the  possibility  of 
restoration,  and  interprets  the  language  of  i  John  v.  i6,  which 
releases  from  the  obligation  of  prayer  for  mortal  sins,  as  meaning 
only  that  we  are  not  to  implore  God  to  graciously  accept  such 
persons  in  their  sins,  but  to  convert  them  again  from  the  latter.' 
Finally,  he  declares — understanding  now  by  "  mortal  sin  "  one 
actually  leading  to  eternal  destruction — that  hatred  of  recognized 
truth  is  a  sin  unto  death  (i  John  v.)  and  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,  if  one  pi^jsisfs  in  such  conscious  sin,  does  not  confess  it, 
nor  forsake  it,  nor  implore  forgiveness  for  it.'^ 

The  conception  of  mortal  sin  last  presented,  or,  what  is  the 
same  thing,  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  in  its  most  extreme 
and  distinctive  form,  .brings  into  view  at  length  a  sin  for  which 
there  is  no  longer  any  prospect  of  forgiveness.  We  must,  how- 
ever, again  discriminate  between  different  conceptions  of  "  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  "  which  occur  in  the  writings  of 
Luther.  He  regards  it  as,  in  general,  a  striving  against  grace,  or 
against  saving  truth  itself,  in  which  it  seeks  to  conceal  its  real 
character,  and  be  accounted  not  as  sin,  but  as  an  excellent  good 
work.^  Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  prayer  for  the  conversion  of 
those  who  are  guilty  of  the"  sin  in  this  general  form  is  not  ex- 
cluded. Under  this  general  conception  of  the  sin  in  question 
Luther  even  includes  the  unwilling  commission  of  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul,  who  afterwards  received  such 
peculiar  tokens  of  the  divine  favor.  There  is  in  such  cases  "  a 
yet  concealed  Holy  Ghost."  *  But  then,  again,  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  described  as  that  in  which  the  heart  resists  the 
illuminating  rays  of  the  Spirit  which  have  penetrated  it  like  a 
flash  of  lightning — resists  the  recognized  truth  and  the  work  of 
divine  grace,  and,  under  all  warnings  given,  becomes  but  the 
more  hardened.^  This  is  the  special  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
for  which  mortal  sin,  not  in  the  wider  sense  of  the  term  as  em- 

lErl.  Ed.,  xli,  346.  «Ibid.,  iii,  148. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  254  ;  xxiii,  74.  *  Ibid.,  xxiii,  74  sqq.,  83. 

5  Ibid.,  76-84. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  469 

ployed  by  Luther,  but  in  the  narrower  sense  last  described,  is  a 
synonymous  term.  For  this  there  is  no  longer  forgiveness,  just 
because  the  necessary  subjective  condition,  i.  <?.,  penitence  and 
faith,  does  not  exist,  but  the  direct  opposite.  Of  such  sinners 
Luther  even  declares,  not  only  that  they  will  not  repent,  but  that 
they  cannot ;  and  he  then  applies  to  them  the  above-cited  pass- 
ages from  Hebrews.^  He  even  counts  them  among  those  for 
whom,  according  to  i  John  v.,  we  are  not  required  to  pray.  He 
hears,  says  he,  that  the  hardened  Papists  are  actually  in  this 
condition ;  and  he  has  resolved  to  withhold  his  prayers  in  their 
behalf,  since  they  are  but  thrown  away  upon  them.''  Upon  the 
question,  whether  such  as  have  already  become  true  believers  can 
yet  fall  into  this  worst  of  all  sins,  we  find  no  direct  nor  complete 
expression  of  opinion  in  Luther's  writings ;  but,  in  accordance 
with  his  general  declarations  as  to  the  possibility  of  falling  which 
still  remains  even  in  the  case  of  such,  we  cannot  but  answer  the 
(juestion  in  the  affirmative. 

So  seriously  does  Luther  regard  sin,  even  in  the  case  of  believers 
graciously  accepted  and  rejoicing  in  their  salvation.  Even  they 
must  still  feel  it  as  a  bitter  reality.  Ever  anew  must  they  take 
refuge  in  the  grace  of  God  alone,  renouncing  all  claims  of  their 
own.  They  must,  likewise,  be  ever  willing  to  submit  to  the  further 
inner  cleansing  of  their  lives  from  sin,  and  to  the  divine  work  of 
cleansing  by  means  of  crosses  and  spiritual  temptations.  But  if 
we  inquire  what  is  the  key-note  in  Luther's  description  of  the 
present  state  of  the  true  Christian,  we  shall  find  it  to  consist 
always  and  everywhere  in  \^^  joyous  consciousness  of  grace,  which 
the  believer  already  really  experiences,  and  before  whose  radiance 
the  depressing  power  of  sin  must,  in  every  case,  at  length  be 
vanquished.  Of  this  he  testifies  most  powerfully  and  boldly, 
particularly  when  it  is  his  aim  to  snatch  honest  Christian  brethren 
out  of  the  gloom  of  spiritual  distress.  He  exhorts  such  to  find 
consolation  in  the  reflection,  that  even  a  thousand  sins,  com- 
mitted in  one  day,  could  not  outweigh  the  value  of  the  heavenly 
Paschal  Lamb.  He  exhorts  them  especially  to  cast  aside  the 
scruples  which  lead  them  to  make  sin  out  of  that  which  is  not 
such  in  God's  sight — foolish,  empty  sins,  such  as  those  with  which 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  81,  79. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  78  sq. ;  xxv,  3.  Cf.,  also,  reference  to  the  Sacramentarians, 
supra,  p.  189. 


470  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

he  had  once  '  tormented  himself.  In  this  sense  he  could  exclaim 
to  a  Melanchthon  :  "  Be  a  sinner  and  sin  bravely,  but  trust  and 
rejoice  more  bravely  in  Christ,  who  is  the  Vanquisher  of  sin, 
death  and  the  world."  '' 


c.  Positive  Moral  Deportment  of  the  Believer  in  the  Various 
Reiations  of  Life. 

ATITTUDE    toward    GOD GOVERNMENT    OF    THE    BODY TREATMENT 

of  FELLOWMEN MARRIAGE  AND  FAMILY  LIFE POLITICAL  RELA- 
TIONS  CIVIL  GOVERNMENT  A  HIERARCHY TO    BE    ACKNOWLEDGED 

PRESERVATION  OF  PEACE CHRISTIANS  MAY  PARTICIPATE  IN  GOV- 
ERNMENT  ITS  SPHERE MONARCHICAL  FORM RIGHT  OF  RESIST- 
ANCE  DUTY    OF    CLEMENCY ENDURANCE    OF    WRONG ESSENTIAL 

LIBERTY    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN. 

The  true  Christian  has  in  his  Faith  a  joyous  confidence,  a 
blessed  experience  and  a  power,  which  will  sustain  him  in  the 
midst  of  all  the  further  strivings  of  sin  within.  Faith  is  now, 
and  will  remain,  for  him  the  unfailing  source  of  his  positive  moral 
deportment. 

The  proper  attitude  of  the  heart,  as  placing  its  dependence 
directly  upon  God,  appears  to  Luther  to  be  already  embraced  in 
the  conception  of  faith  itself.  Whereas  the  soul  should  be  con- 
tent with  nothing  less  than  the  supreme  Good,  by  whom  it  has 
been  created  and  who  is  the  source  of  its  life,  and  should  cling  to 
Him,  this  clinging  is  nothing  else  than  faith  itself.  It  is  just  in 
faith,  too,  that  due  glory  is  given  to  God.  As  we  call  that  a  God 
from  which  we  are  to  expect  everything  good,  so  to  have  a  God  is 
simply  to  trust  and  believe  in  Him  from  the  heart.''  But  in" 
immediate  connection  with  this  stands  that  Love  in  which  I  myself 
am  also  kindly  and  favorably  disposed  toward  this  good  God, 
inasmuch  as  His  love  to  me  enkindles  such  a  disposition  in  my 
heart.  Thus  my  heart  and  inward  feelings  are  to  be  entirely 
turned  toward  God,  so  that  1  accept  with  equal  readiness  what- 
soever my  God  appoints  for  me.     I  am  to  be  satisfied  with  His 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  55,69. 

^  Briefe,  i,  36  sq.      Cf.,  also,  particularly  Briefe,  iv,  188. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  261  ;   xxi,  35  sqq.     Cf.  supra,  p.  285. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  4'/ 1 

goodness,  even  when  I  do  not  feel  it.  In  this  faith  and  love  I 
am  then  to  obey  and  serve  Him — not  from  fear  of  punishment, 
nor  for  the  sake  of  the  reward,  although  the  promise  of  the 
reward  which  is  to  naturally  follow  is  designed  to  assist  in  stimu- 
lating me  and  enflaming  my  desire  for  piety.  I  am  permitted 
also  to  love  created  things,  in  so  far  as  they  have  come  from 
God  and  are  good.  But  I  dare  not  make  them  equal  to  God, 
nor  depend  upon  them,  but  must,  on  the  contrary,  willingly 
renounce  aftd  cast  from  me  .everything  else,  if  He  desires  it.' 
The  Fear  of  God  must  also  remain  side  by  side  with  faith  and 
love.  It  thus  stands,  according  to  Luther,  just  as  in  God  holiness 
and  punitive  justice  stand,  side  by  side  with  love  and  mercy ;  or 
as  the  Law,  which  rebukes  and  warns  against  the  sin  yet  remain- 
ing or  again  threatening  to  assert  its  power,  stands  side  by  side 
with  the  Gospel.  The  fear  of  God  and  confidence  in  Him  are 
thus  to  stand  together,  in  order  that  man  may  not  become  pre- 
sumptuous and  carnally  secure.  Spiritual  trials  are  particularly 
designed  to  assist  in  the  cultivation  of  such  a  dispoeition.  And 
as  we  should  do  everything,  according  to  Luther,  to  please  God, 
from  love  to  Him  ^.nd  faith  in  Him  ;  so  the  heart,  which  prompts 
all  our  actions,  should  be  at  the  same  time  a  heart  that  fears 
God,  accepts  His  Word  as  spoken  with  divine  earnestness,  and 
esteems  it  highly.  There  may  and  should  here  he  cherished,  at 
least  side  by  side  with  thoughts  of  the  divine  promises,  also 
thoughts  of  the  threatenings  and  penalties  of  the  divine  Law. 
But  the  proper,  Christian,  filial  feaT  is  that  in  which  we  joyfully 
believe  and  hope,  even  in  the  midst  hi  our  fears,  as  we  are  ex- 
horted in  Ps.  ii.  1 1  :  "  Rejoice  with  tremWing."  But  of  course 
the  Christian,  when  under  the  stress  of  spiritual  temptations, 
must  realize  that  even  the  sense  of  this  inward  joy  has  vanished.'^ 
We  thus,  with  Luther,  embrace  all  that  is  included  in  a  proper 
bearing  toward  God  in  the  three  particulars  :  "  We  should  fear, 
love  and  trust  in  God  above  all  things."  '' 

The  relation  and  attitude  of  the  believer  toward  God  finds 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  4;  xii,  260.  Op.  Ex.,  xiii,  144.  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  146,  6; 
xlv,  230.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  138  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  240  ;  xv,  469.  Jena,  ii, 
343;   cf.,  supra,  p.  460. 

2Ibid.,  xxi,  91  sq. ;  xi,  5.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  96,  103,  107  sq.  Supra,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  140. 

^  Ibid.,  xxi,  10. 


472  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

most  profound  utterance  in  Prayer,  in  which  his  heart  and  soul ' 
mount  up  to  God,  now  in  longing  desire  and  aspiration,  and  again 
with  praise  and  thanksgiving.  In  it  are  displayed,  at  the  same 
time,  the  highest  work  and  glory  of  the  believer,  /.  e.,  the  dignity 
and  power  which  belong  to  him,  as  against  the  entire  world,  in  his 
relations  with  God.  For  in  prayer  all  things  are  promised  to  him 
— deliverance  from  present  and  future  misery,  holiness,  liberty, 
life,  and,  besides  all  this,  the  beggar's  portion  on  the  earth — the 
the  common  necessaries  of  life.  Prayer  is  "  the  only  omnipotent 
empress  in  human  affairs."  It  is  the  quite  peculiar  and  the 
chief  work  of  Christan  believers.  They  engage  in  it  because  the 
promise  is  attached  to  it,  and  because  it  is  commanded.  They 
practice  it  without  ceasing,  since,  even  when  the  lips  do  not 
move,  the  heart  still  throbs  and  beats  as  it  silently  breathes  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  just  as  the  heart  and  arteries  throb  constantly  in 
the  body.  As  they  always  desire  to  be  nothing,  and  to  be  con- 
sidered as  of  no  worthiness  except  only  through'  God's  grace  and 
in  Christ,  they,  in  prayer,  also  cast  away  all  thought  of  self  and 
depend  alone  upon  the  promise  of  grace,  praying  in  Jesus'  name 
alone.  Hence  it  follows  that  they  should  not  suffer  themselves 
to  be  frightened  into  neglect  of  a  proper  approach  to  God  by  the 
sense  of  their  own  unworthiness  or  sinfulness." 

The  entire  deportment  of  the  believer,  thus  depicted,  in  so  far 
as  it  displays  the  attitude  of  his  heart  toward  God,  may  be  sum- 
marized in  what  Luther  has  said  primarily  of  faith,'^  /.  e.,  that  he 
"  rises  above  himself  to  God."  We  must  now  also  observe  more 
closely  how  he  "  descends  beneath  himself,'''  how  he  deports  himself 
in  the  relatiotis  of  his  earthly  life  and  surroinidiiigs. 

The  prescriptions  of  Luther  for  moral  discipline  and  the  Gov- 
erning of  the  Body  and  of  the  Flesh  *  are  chiefly  negative  in  char- 
acter, and  have  in  view  the  continual  crushing  out  and  crucifixion 

1  Luther  says  (Op.  Ex.,  xvii,  2i6)  that  prayer  is  not  an  ascending  of  the 
mind  (mentis)  but  an  upHfting  of  the  soul  (animas).  Unfortunately,  the  Ger- 
man version  (Erl.  Ed.,  xxxviii,  25S)  here  translates  "  mens  "  by  the  word, 
"  Herz."  For  the  conception  of  the  term,  "  heart,"  as  used  by  Luther,  see,  on 
the  other  hand,  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  113.     Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  4. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  166.  Op.  Ex.,  xvii,  217.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxviii,  366;  xlix, 
113-116.     Briefe,  v,  276,  443.     Erl.  Ed.,  xliii,  284;  xxi,  100,  107  ;  1,  1 14  sqq. 

«  Vol.  L,  p.  418. 

^Cf.  Vol.  L,  p.  415  .sq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  473 

of  sin.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  he  still  recognizes  especially  the 
practice  oi  fasting  z.?,  of  great  importance  in  its  moral  significance. 
Although  he  had  long  since  rejected  the  ecclesiastically  imposed 
fasts,  as  detrimental  to  liberty  of  conscience,  and  yet  only  chil- 
dren's, or  lying,  fasts,  he  yet  advises  Christians  to  fast  often,  in 
order  that  the  body  rnay  be  "  tamed."  But  he  considers  a  real 
fast  to  mean,  that  one  willingly — whether  or  not  required  by 
necessity  or  his  own  resolution — deprives  his  body,  or  any  one 
of  the  five  senses,  of  a  desired  gratification  and  governs  it,  or 
when  he  denies  himself  sleep,  leisure,  or  any  kind  of  recreation. 
Such  fasting  does  not  necessarily,  in  his  view,  require  an  entire 
abstinence  from  meat  or  other  kinds  of  food,  but  merely  from 
such  things  as  are  not  required  by  absolute  necessity,  in  order  that 
the  body  may  be  kept  in  subjection  and  in  proper  condition  for 
work.  This,  says  he,  is  indeed  a  fasting  for  which  no  general 
rules  can  be  given,  but  which  every  one  must  impose  upon  him- 
self in  such  measure  as  may,_  in  his  own  judgment,  be  necessary. 
He  admonishes  every  one  especially  to  willingly  accept  all  the 
crosses  and  sufferings  which  (iod  Himself  may  lay  upon  him.' 
He  regards  it,  further,  as  allowable,  and  even  desirable,  that  the 
civil  government  should  sometimes,  in  order  to  restrain  the 
excesses  of  the  common  people  and  not  allow  them  to  eat  up  all 
that  they  have,  prohibit  the  eating  or  sale  of  meat  on  certain 
days.  But  such  a  regulation  he  would  consider  a  purely  secular 
ordinance.  He  would  approve  also  the  observance  of  a  general 
fast  upon  the  days  preceding  the  great  festivals ;  but  care  must 
in  such  case  be  taken  not  to  make  such  an  observance  an  act  of 
divine  worship,  as  though  we  could  thus  merit  anything  at  the 
hand  of  God.  He  recommends  this,  however,  only  as  a  means 
of  external  discipline  and  exercise  for  the  young  and  simple,  and 
discriminates  carefully  between  everything  of  this  character  and 
that  true  Christian  fasting  of  which  Christ  speaks,  and  which  is  a 
matter  for  the  conscience  of  each  individual.'^ 

Upon  the  other  hand,  guided  by  the  same  general  principle 
and    the    same    fundamental    conception   of   the   Christian  life, 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  128;  xliii,  194  sqq. ;  200  sq.  ;  li,  15;  xvii,  8  sq.  Cf.  in  re- 
gard to  Luther's  own  practice,  Melanclithon's  report  in"Vitae  Quatuor  Refor- 
matorum,  p.  5. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  406;  xliii,  197  sq. 


474  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Luther  would  have  the  Christian,  with  faith  in  his  deliverance 
through  Christ  and  with  joyous  confidence  in  God,  give  even 
the  body  its  rights  a7id  all  due  honor,  and  without  any  scruple 
enjoy  the  pleasures  which  he  thus  allows  himself — as,  for  example, 
in  matters  of  food,  drink  and  clothing — only  practicing  proper 
moderation  and  each  one  observing  the  proprieties  of  his  station. 
Particularly  does  he  exhort  those  who  are  in  spiritual  distress 
and  tempted  to  .despondency  to  resort  even  to  such  worldly 
means  of  exciting  and  cheering  up  both  body  and  soul,  in  order 
to  defy  and  mock  the  devil,  who  is  always  trying  to  awaken 
scruples  about  harmless  things.  If  the  devil  prohibits  drinking, 
we  may  drink  all  the  more  freely,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.' 
In  particular,  however  earnestly  he  recommends  the  subjugation 
of  the  flesh,  he  will  yet  hear  nothing  of  the  obliteration  of  purely 
natural  emotions,  or  of  stoical  apathy.  And,  however  strictly  he 
requires  the  renunciation,  upon  occasion,  of  even  the  closest 
natural  ties,  he  yet  esteems  very  highly,  in  opposition  to  the 
Satanic  teachings  under  the  Papacy  and  the  monastic  life,  the 
natural  affection  for  husband,  wife,  parents,  etc.  The  pious,  says 
he  "  retain  the  aropyeig  or  innate  natural  affections,"  because  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  extinguish,  but  wonderfully  reinforces, 
inflames  and  cherishes  them.^ 

It  will  be  in  entire  keeping  with  the  general  inner  harmony  of 
Luther's  ethical  views  if  we  now,  following  still  further  the  course 
of  his  Freihcit  eiiies  Christenmenschen,  turn  to  consider  hoiv  the 
Christian,  "  descending  beneath  himself "  in  love,  Deports  Himself 
toward  his  Neighbor.  Here  Christ  is  always  presented  as  the 
pattern,  frequently  with  especial  reference  to  Phil.  ii.  6  sqq.^  As 
Christ  has  given  what  is  His  to  Christians,  so  they  allow  that 
which  belongs  to  them,  which  they  have  received  from  and 
through  Him,  to  overflow  upon  others.  Their  faith,  indeed,  and 
the  blessings  which  it  brings  them,  they  cannot  transfer  to  others; 
yet  they  pray  for  others  that  they  may  also  thus  put  on  Christ. 
It  is  an  error  to  define  love  as  only  "  wishing  good  to  any  one  "  ; 
love  is  active,  and  displays  its  activity  in  serving  others,  comfort- 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  39  sqq  ;  viii,  290 ;  xxxiv,  47  sq.  Briefe,  vi,  435.  (In  regard 
to  dancing,  see  earlier  expression  in  Op.  Ex.,  xii,  177).  Op.  Ex.,  v,  81  sq. 
Briefe,  iv,  188,  543  sq. 

2  Op.  Ex.,  X,  167  sq.,  234,  335  sq. 

^  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  416  sq.  ;  supra,  pp.  365  sq.,  374,  4'5- 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW,  475 

ing  the  distressed,  helping  to  the  extent  of  its  abihty,  devoting 
itself  unselfishly  with  tongue,  mouth,  earthly  possessions,  body 
and  life,  etc.  There  is,  indeed,  a  certain  knowledge  of  it  im- 
planted in  men  by  nature ;  but  no  believer  even  has  as  yet 
sufficiently  considered  or  put  into  practice  all  that  it  involves. 
It  really  springs  from  the  love  of  God  and  of  Christ  which  we  our- 
selves experience.  The  mofe  fully  we  ourselves  enjoy  and  appre- 
ciate the  blessings  of  love,  the  more  loving  service  do  we  render 
and  the  more  love  do  we  bestow  upon  our  fellowmen.  And  it  is 
just  in  the  exercise  of  such  love  that  Christians,  as  the  followers 
of  Christ,  become  like  the  God  who,  without  ceasing,  bestows 
upon  the  whole  world  all  good  things,  and  Christ  besides.  They 
become  God-like,  even  gods,  for  their  fellowmen.'  So  directly 
is  this  disposition  towards  our  fellowmen  involved  in  the  very 
conception  of  faith  itself,  that  he  calls  faith  the  doer  and  love 
the  deed,  or  faith  the  doer  who  performs  the  works  of  love.'  In 
this  love  he  then  regards  all  other  virtues  as  included,  and  all 
good  works  likewise.  Thus  it  is  also  the  summary  and  fulfilment 
of  the  Law.  Referring  to  the  endless  expansion  of  the  Law  in 
books  and  in  religious  and  secular  ordinances,  etc.,  he  demands 
that  rJl  such  laws  be,  in  any  event,  administered  in  accordance 
with  the  supreme  law,  rule  and  measure  of  love.  Thus,  he  de 
dares,  the  Scriptures  also  embrace  all  laws  in  that  of  love,  and 
subordinate  them  to  it.*  (/ 

Luther  would  by  no  means  assign  to  \^q.  preaching  of  luorks, 
as  thus  conceived,  a  subordinate  place.  "  Both  doctrines,  that 
of  faith  and  that  of  works,  should  be  diligently  taught  and  im- 
pressed, yet  in  such  a  way  that  each  is  kept  within  its  own  limits." 
•"  I  would  not,"  says  he,  "  for  the  wealth  of  the  whole  world  give 
up  the  trifling  works  that  I  may  have  done  ;  for  if  I  have  done 
any  good  work,  it  was  God  who  did  it  through  me,  and  if  God 
did  it,  what  is  the  whole  world  in  comparison  with  His  work?" 
He  held  the  first  three  Gospels  as,  from  this  point  of  view, 
superior  to  that  of  St.  John.*     But  he  nevertheless  returns  con- 

'Cf.  pp.  285  sq.,  454  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  195;    vii,  159,  304  sq. ;   ;<ix,  381, 
396. 

■■'Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  63.     Jena  i,  553.      Cf.  supra,  p.  450  sq. 

3  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  355.     Erl.   Ed.,  li,   284  sqq.,    289,   292;  viii,  50  sqq., 

65  ■'^qq-.  53  sq- 

*  Comm  ad  Gal.,  iii,  5.     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  295  ;  xliii,  81.     Cf.  supra,  p.  243. 


476  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

stantly  to  the  announcement  of  the  fundamental  principle,  that 
works  contribute  nothing  to  the  securing  of  eternal  happiness. 
The  Christian,  in  his  state  of  blessedness,  appears  to  him  as  com- 
plete in  himself  without  works,  just  as  Christ  did  not  need  to 
perform  these  for  His  own  sake.  They  are  necessary  only 
because  the  Christian  is  yet  living  here  in  the  flesh,  from  which 
he  constantly  longs  to  be  transported  entirely  to  that  heaven  to 
which  he  already  in  his  real  character  belongs.  The  perform- 
ance of  works  connected  with  our  earthly  life  is  contrasted  with 
faith  as  is  the  flesh  with  the  Spirit.' 

If  we  are  to  follow  out  more  fully,  in  its  concrete  expansion 
and  analysis,  the  doctrine  of  Luther  concerning  the  moral  life  of 
the  believer  upon  earth,  it  will  be  necessary  for  us  to  classify  his 
utterances  in  accordance  with  their  relation  to  one  or  the  other 
of  the  three  conditions,  orders  or  spheres  of  human  life. 

There  are,  says  he,  three  holy  orders  {Orden),  or  proper  insti- 
tutions {Stiften)  established  by  God  (as  opposed  to  the  monastic 
orders  huir.anly  devised  for  the  furtherance  of  holy  living),  /.  e., 
the  Priesthood,  Marriage  and  Civil  Government.  Above  all 
three  is  the  universal  order  of  Christian  Love.  Of  the  last 
named  we  have  just  treated.  Under  the  second  of  the  special 
orders,  Luther  includes  the  entire  economy  of  family  life.  In  all 
three,  men  are  to  serve  God.  He  who  meets  his  obligations  in 
these  relations  performs  works  that  are,  in  the  full  sense  of  the 
word,  holy  in  the  sight  of  God.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  through 
them  that  God  administers  His  government  over  the  world  and 
the  human  race.  Thus,  to  the  order  of  the  family  belong  parents 
and  masters  as  those  divinely  commissioned  to  exercise  authority, 
and  children  and  servants  as,  in  accordance  with  the  divine  will, 
rendering  obedience.  To  the  third  order  belong  those  bearing 
civil  authority,  together  with  the  lands  and  people  over  whom 
they  rule.  The  first  order  has  to  do  with  ,<//>//// <7/ government 
through  the  Word ;  the  other  two,  designated  the  "  ordinationes 
oeconomicae  et  politicae,'''  with  temporal  {leibliches)  government 
and  its  external  laws,  power  and  penalties.  But  the  special  point 
upon  which  Luther  insists,  and  which  he  maintains  against  all 
opposition,  was  that  both  the  latter  orders  were  also  instituted 
and  hallowed  by  God.     They  are,  therefore,  "  hierarchies,"  as 

'  Op.  Ex.,  XX,  77. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  477 

well  as  the  first.  They  are  divine  institutions,  first  of  all,  by  virtue 
of  their  original  establishment.  God  ordained  them  and  de- 
clared them  good,  just  as  He  did  in  the  case  of  the  sun  and 
moon  and  the  whole  order  of  creation.  Still  further,  God  gave 
to  them,  in  addition  to  the  positon  assured  to  them  by  His  direct 
appointment,  His  sanctifying  Word.  Thus  He  Himself  instructed 
Adam  and  Eve  to  be  fruitful  and  multiply,  and  gave  command- 
ment that  children  should  honor  their  parents;  and  He  similarly 
authorized  the  exercise  of  authority  over  temporal  things  in  gen- 
eral, in  the  words  of  Gen.  i.  28:  "Have  dominion,"  etc.  He 
confirms  the  authority  of  secular  government  still  further  in 
Rom.  xiii.  i  sqq.  By  means  of  all  three  orders  God  desires 
particularly  to  combat  all  that  is  evil ;  and  they  remain  "  hier- 
archies "  by  virtue  of  the  position  and  character  which  He  has 
assigned  to  them,  although  never  so  many  evil  men  should  share 
in  their  administration.' 

Of  the  spiritual  orders  and  government,  we  shall  treat  at  large 
when  reviewing  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Church,  in  our 
eighth  chapter.  To  present  in  detail  all  the  teachings  of  Luther 
bearing  upon  the  subject  of  marriage  and  civil  government  would 
carry  us  far  beyond  the  limits  of  our  present  undertaking.'^  We 
must  content  ourselves,  therefore,  with  a  brief  presentation  of 
the  leading  principles  which  he  asserted  in  respect  to  the  latter 
orders. 

Luther  had  already  vigorously  defended  and  lauded  the  dignity 
and  sanctity  of  Maniage  before  he  ever  thought  of  sanctioning 
the  renunciation  of  the  monastic  vow.''  How  strongly  we  are 
inclined  toward  this  state,  in  itself  so  good  and  noble,  by  neces- 
sity, /.  e.,  by  the  force  of  natural  impulse,  he  had  argued  at 
length,  especially  in  his  discussions  of  the  character  of  such  vows.* 
He  defines  marriage  as  "  the  inseparable  union  of  one  male  and 
one  female  person,  not  only  by  a  law  of  nature  (as  the  jurists 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  366  sq.  ;  xxv,  387.  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  51  ;  x,  230 ;  xx,  66  ;  vi, 
245.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  367;  xi,  326;  iv,  337  sqq.,  355.  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  295. 
Briefe  v,  399  sq.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  41.  Cf.  supra,  p.  327  sq.  (Connec- 
tion of  this  doctrine  with  the  general  doctrine  of  God's  relation  to  the  world 
and  its  government.) 

2  Particiilnrly  would  the  introduction  of  his  position  upon  the  question  of  di- 
vorce (Cf.  Vol.  I  ,  p.  405)  compel  us  to  a  minute  examination  of  special  details. 

'  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  377.  *  Vol.  I.,  p.  453  sq. 


478  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

express  it)  but  also,  as  we  may  say,  by  the  divine  will  and  pleas- 
ure." Its  object,  or  final  cause,  he  holds  to  be  the  begetting  of 
children,  the  " procrcatio  soboHs."  In  view  of  this  purpose,  we 
cannot  condemn  a  marriage  even  when  the  "  efficient  cause," 
or  the  parents,  are  wicked  ;  for  the  '■^ procrcatio  "  itself  is  a  "  most 
excellent  work  of  God  and  worthy  of  all  admiration."  It  was 
with  this  object  in  view  that  God  instituted  marriage  in  Paradise 
before  the  Fall ;  to  this  end,  it  was  not  good  that  the  man  should 
be  alone.  But  this  purpose  is  at  once  further  defined  by  Luther 
as  including  the  divine  plan  to  thus  furnish  a  constantly  increas- 
ing number  of  children  for  the  service  of  the  Lord  and  for  His 
Church.  The  familv,  whose  existence  is  involved  in  that  of 
marriage,  is,  in  his  view,  the  place  where  chiTdren  are  to  be  trained 
lip  in  the  fear  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  Husband  and  wife 
are  also  especially  bound  to  labor  together  in  the  service  of  God. 
Children  are,  further,  to  be  so  reared  in  the  family  as  to  become 
worthy  and  compei|jnt  leaders  in  state  and  Church.  Thus  mar- 
riage and  the  family  are  not  only  the  "  fount  and  source  of  the 
human  race,"  but  are,  at  the  same  time,  to  serve  as  a  preparatory 
school  {paratio)  of  the  Church  and  a  fountain  of  the  state.  We 
are  thus  led  to  the  definition :  "  Marriage  is  a  lawful  and  divine 
union,  ordained  for  the  worship  of  God  and  for  the  preservation 
and  education  of  posterity  for  the  administration  of  the  Church 
and  state."  ' 

That  God  ordained  marriage  for  the  sake  of  affording  carnal 
pleasure  and  delight,  Luther  denies.  But  he  maintains,  indeed, 
that,  inasmuch  as  through  the  Fall  unbridled  sexual  lust  has  been 
aroused,  marriage  has  since  then,  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
will,  had  the  further  purpose  of  serving  as  a  dam  against  the  sinful 
outbreaks  of  such  passion.  He  even  calls  this  now  the  "  first 
object,"  the  original  design  being  still  regarded  as  the  "  greater 
and  chief  end."  Even  thus,  however,  carnal  desire  retains  for 
him  a  sinful  character,^  but — "  the  approval  and  good-pleasure  of 
God  covers  over  the  miserable  baseness  of  lust  and  removes  the 
wrath  of  God  impending  over  such  concupiscence." '  He  con- 
stantly appeals  to  the  consciences  of  the  false,  but  professedly 

'Op.  Ex.,  vi,  7  ;  xix,   73;  i,   129  sqq.,  145  sqq.,    213;  iv,   II,    202.      Erl. 
Ed.,  xliv,  25.     Op.  Ex.,  XX,  65  ?q. ;  vii,  no  sqq. 
■^  Supra,  p.  347. 
*  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  Ml;  iv,  202 ;  i,  145 ;  vi,  7  sq.,  284  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  479 

pure  and  saintly  celibates,  to  testify  how  very  few  indeed  pre- 
serve true  chastity,  or  are  free  from  vile  inward  carnal  desires, 
etc.  This,  he  declares,  is  and  remains  an  extraordinarily  rare  gift 
of  God.  Those  to  whom  it  has  been  really  granted  he,  with  the 
Apostle  Paul,  advises  to  act  prudently  and  avoid  married  life  with 
all  the  responsibility  and  cares  which  it  brings  with  it.  He  points 
out  as  among  the  advantages  of  such  a  course,  that  we  can  thus 
serve  God  so  much  the  better  and  be  less  hampered  in  view  of 
the  peril  of  persecution  which  is  always  impending  over  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  But  he  would  not  have  celibacy  regarded  as  a 
virtue,  or  as  a  meritorious  work,  but  as  a  particular  state ;  whereas 
marriage  is  also  just  as  well  a  divinely  crdained  state.  We  are 
by  no  means  to  give  to  the  former  the  credit  of  representing  the 
hundred-fold  fruit-bearing  of  Matt.  xiii.  8.'  We  dare  not  com- 
pare the  ranks,  or  orders,  of  human  life  to  the  fruits  there  spoken 
of,  as  we  would  in  that  case  have  to  call  dominion,  childhood, 
etc.,  purely  fruits  of  the  Gospel.  And,  still  further,  Luther  declares 
marriage  and  the  family,  with  the  toils  and  cares  which  they 
involve,  an  excellent  place  for  the  practice  of  faith,  in  which  men 
are  forced  and  driven  to  this  most  profound  and  sublime  spiritual 
exercise,  the  faith  which  depends  simply  upon  the  Word  of  God. 
There  can  be  no  question  that,  comparing  Luther's  view  of  the 
cares  and  perils  of  married  life  upon  the  one  hand,  and  its 
dignity  and  benefits  upon  the  other,  with  that  presented  by  the 
apostle  in  i  Cor.  vii.,  the  preponderating  advantage  will  be  found 
in  the  two  cases  to  be  located  upon  opposite  sides.  Yet  Luther 
advises  impetuous  youth  nevertheless  to  at  least  exercise  a  little 
patience  for  a  year  or  two,  and  hold  the  flesh  in  subjection,  as 
such  a  mortification  of  fleshly  lusts  will  be  a  salutary  martyrdom.^ 
The  above-cited  fundamental  definition  of  marriage,  according 
lo  which  its  validity  as  a  divine  ordinance  is  to  be  acknowledged, 
even  in  the  case  of  wicked  and  non-Christian  partners  or  parents, 
makes  it  very  manifest  for  what  reason,  and  in  how  far,  Luther 
always  remands  it  to  the  sphere  of  the  bodily  and  secular  life.  It 
is,  accordingly,  for  him :  "  an  external,  bodily  thing,  which 
neither  hinders  nor  promotes  faith,  and  in  which  one  party  may 

'Cf.,  on  the  other  hand,  Vol.  I.,  p.  184. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  17,  29  ;   xxxiii,  122  sq.  ;  li,  59  sqq.,  65  ;   xi,  91   sqq. ;  li.  19, 
21.     Op.  Ex.,  vi,  149. 


480  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

very  easily,  according  to  i  Cor.  vii.  12,  be  a  Christian  and  the 
other  a  non-Christian,  just  as  a  Christian  may  eat  with  a  heathen, 
engage  in  business  transactions  with  him,  etc.,  or,  as  in  our  day, 
one  party  may  be  a  true  and  pious  Christian  and  the  other  a 
wicked  and  hypocritical  Christian."  The  fundamental  character 
of  marriage  is  not  in  such  instances  destroyed,  and  we  are  not  to 
sever  the  relation  of  the  parties  on  such  grounds.'  On  the  other 
hand,  we  are  distinctly  taught  that  married  life  is,  according  to 
the  divine  will,  to  be  conducted  upon  this  general,  natural  and 
bodily  foundation  as  a  holy  and  even  spiritual  state,  although  this 
is  not  essential  to  its  validity  as  a  genuine  marriage.  It  should 
be  entered  upon  with  faith  in  the  Word  of  God  which  authorizes 
it,  and  in  the  divine  will  which  consummates  it.''  By  the  very 
temporal  cares  which  it  involves,  it  should  impel  to  constant  and 
complete  trust  in  God.  With  its  outward  existence  and  labors 
should  be  combined  also  a  united  calling  upon  God  and  education 
for  Him  and  for  His  Church.  It  was  only  when  maintaining  the 
fundamental  nature  of  marriage  and  combating  the  denial  of  its 
validity  upon  unauthorized  grounds,  as  sanctioned  by  the  Papacy, 
that  Luther  declared,  in  A.  D.  1522,'^  that  a  Christian  may  even 
marry  a  heathen  or  a  Jew.  This  he  would  afterwards,  according 
to  later  utterances,  no  longer  have  admitted — maintaining  only 
that  such  a  marriage,  when  once  contracted,  was  valid,  not  that 
a  Christian  could  enter  into  such  a  relation  with  a  good  con- 
science. 

The  further  prescriptions  in  regard  to  marriage  just  alluded  to 
involve  also  the  solemnization  of  the  union  under  the  sanction  of 
the  Church.  The  parties  contemplating  marriage  announce  pub- 
licly their  entrance  upon  the  state  of  holy  matrimony  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ordinance  of  God,  and  receive  the  blessing  of  the 
Church — and  are,  without  doubt,  also  blessed  by  God.  Even  when 
thus  giving  instructions  for  the  proper  solemnization  of  marriage, 
however,  he  again  calls  the  marriage  ceremony  a  secular  matter, 
and  marriage  itself  a  secular  state,  although  one  instituted  by  God 
and  divine,  which  we  may,  therefore,  also  solemnize  in  a  much 
more  glorious  way  (than  by  mere  secular  authority).  And  in  his 
discussions  of  matrimonial  laws,  he  never  makes  the  validity  of 
marriage  dependent  upon  an    ecclesiastical  sanction,  but   only 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  39.  2  Cf.  also  ibid.,  xxiii,  104  sq.  ^  Ibid.,  xx,  65. 


SYSTEMAIIC    REVIEW.  48 1 

upon  2l public  espousal,  since  marriage  is  "a  public  state,  which 
should  be  publicly  adopted  and  acknowledged  before  the  con- 
gregation." He  always  firmly  maintains  that  we  dare  not  make 
a  sacrament  of  marriage,  since  it  is  itself  already  a  holy  order.' 

Luther  had  risen  to  a  new  and  independent  conception  of 
secular  authority,  or  the  Sphere  of  the  State,  embraced  by  him 
commonly  under  the  term*  '■'■  politia,^^  after  arriving  at  a  clear 
perception  of  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  a  heavenly  and  spiritual 
institution,  and  of  its  government  as  an  authority  to  be  exercised 
through  the  Word  and  Spirit — after  the  claims  of  the  Papacy  to 
secular  dominion  had  been  accordingly  recognized  as  anti-Chris- 
tian presumption.  He  did  not,  therefore,  regard  a  secular 
government  as  deprived  of  its  lofty  and  sacred  character  because 
administered  by  purely  secular  princes,  nor  because,  perchance, 
resting  under  the  curse  of  the  supposed  earthly  head  of  the 
Church.  On  the  contrary,  such  a  government,  as  a  divine 
creature  and  institution,  was  regarded  by  him  as  in  itself,  equally 
with  the  Church,  a  holy  order,  a  ''  hie^-archy'''  We  recall  his 
utterances  of  A.  D.  15 19  and  1520.^  When,  in  1521,  Melanch- 
thon  was  inclined  to  object  to  the  approval  of  the  sword  as  an 
instrument  of  civil  government  because  the  Gospel  does  not 
prescribe  its  use,  Luther  replied,  that  the  Gospel  as  such  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  administration  of  secular  affairs.  But  he 
maintains,  also,  that  the  sword  is  not  only  tolerated,  but  that  its 
office  is  even  confirmed,  in  the  New  Testament,  declaring  the 
language  of  Rom.  xiii.  to  be  "  words  of  God,  proclaiming  a  grand 
truth"  {magnum  sonans')?  From  the  very  first  announcement 
of  his  view  as  to  the  divinely-ordained  authority  of  secular  law 
and  the  sword  committed  to  it,  he  combined  at  once  with  it  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  divine  sanction  of  iht  particular  gzroern- 
me?its  at  any  time  in  actual  existence.  This  principle  he  applies 
at  once  impartially  to  such  secular  authorities  as  oppose  the 
Gospel.  Although  we  dare  not  listen  to  such  secular  rulers  in 
matters  of  faith  and  conscience,  yet  we  must  allow  them  full 
scope,  and  offer  no  violent  resistance  to  them,  in  secular  affairs. 
Even  the  imperial  princes  who  had  accepted  the  doctrines  of  the 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XX,  52 ;  xxvi,  105 ;  xxiii,  20S-214,  95  sq. ;  xxx,  37 1  ;  ]xv,  174. 
Cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  339. 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  308  sq.,  371  sq.  '^  Briefe,  ii,  23  sq. 

31 


482  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Gospel  should  submit  patiently  if  their  secular  superior,  the 
Emperor,  should  take  their  lands  from  them.  When  the  Fanatics 
appealed  to  the  Law  of  the  Old  Testament  in  justification  of  their 
violent  measures  of  reform,  Luther  at  once  met  them  with  a  firm 
assertion  of  the  exclusive  authority  of  the  civil  rulers  in  such 
matters.'  If  his  enemies  accused  him  of  being  himself  a  pro- 
moter of  sedition,  he  could  rightfully  claim,  in  reply,  that  it  was 
he  who  first  taught  men  to  give  due  honor  to  the  secular  power 
and  to  assign  it  its  proper  place  of  authority.'^ 

The  object,  or  "  final  cause,"  of  the  " politia  "  Luther  briefly 
states  as  \^t  presentation  of  peace  {conservatio  pacts),  just  as  he 
found  the  final  cause  of  marriage  in  che  ^^ procreatio  sobo/is." 
More  precisely,  he  would  have  this  object  secured  by  the  admin- 
istration of  external  law  and  the  infliction  of  external  penalties 
upon  evil-doers,  who  disturb  the  peace.  He  ascribes  to  them 
also  the  administration  of  justice  in  business  affairs  {justitia 
commiinicatizHi)^  according  to  which  contracts  are  to  be  ratified, 
etc.  The  external  administration  of  justice  in  general  is  thus 
included  in  the  object  of  civil  government.  This  power,  pro- 
tecting the  right  and  preventing  wrong,  is  further  designed  to 
prove  particularly  beneficial  to  the  family  and  the  Church, 
making  it  possible  for  all  to  peaceably  pursue  their  respective 
callings.  But,as  the  last  purpose  of  civil  government — of  which 
even  the  philosophers  who  have  rightly  recognized  the  design 
already  mentioned  know  nothing — over  and  beyond  the  pre- 
servation of  peace  for  our  benefit,  Luther  would  have  us  recognize 
the  promotion  of  the  glory  of  that  God,  whose  mere  instruments 
we  are  in  the  securing  of  the  above-  mentioned  purpose,  and 
through  whose  blessing  and  special  illumination  {sitigularis 
afflatus  Hiemiiiis)  alone  any  civil  administration  can  prosper.''  In 
such  a  kingdom  then,  as  in  a  human  body,  the  various  functions 
of  government  should  be  so  distributed  that  the  preservation  and 
power   of    the    entire  body  may    be    promoted.*     Accordingly, 

1  Erl.  Eel.,  xxii,  63  ;  xii,  19  sq.  Weimar.  Fred. 7  69.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  43  sqq., 
258  sqq.     Briefe,  ii,  240;  vi,  39  sq.  (Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  277  sqq.),  iii,  560. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  248;  xxxi,  35,  236;   xxxix,  226,  267. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  68  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  xix,  73;  xx,  48  sqq.,  57,  230.  Erl.  Ed., 
xliv,  25.     Briefe,  ii,  23. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  137. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  483 

Christians  may  and  should  also  participate  in  the  administration 
of  secular  government.  The  monastic  notion,  that  we  may  and 
should  renounce  the  duty  of  participation  in  such  affairs,  just  as 
marriage  is  renounced,  is  to  be  rejected.  Even  some  great  philos- 
ophers have  erroneously  supposed  such  a  course  to  be  praise- 
worthy. The  judgment  of  Aristotle  is  better,  when  he  asserts : 
"A  magistrate  brings  truth  to  light."  The  proverb  says:  "A 
solitary  man  is  either  a  beast  or  a  God  " — from  which  it  is  to  be 
inferred  that  a  solitary  man  is  of  necessity  a  beast,'  Since, 
moreover,  Luther  regards  the  administration  of  restrictive  and 
punitive  laws  as  the  aim  of  the  secular  power,  he  is  accustomed 
also,  although  he  found,  indeed,  in  Gen.  i.  28,  traces  of  a  govern- 
ment exercised  over  temporal  things  from  the  very  beginning  of 
the  world,-  to  regard  the  establishment  of  secular  power  and 
'■^ politia,'''  in  distinction  from  that  of  the  family  and  Church,  as 
a  result  of  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world.  Christians, 
as  such,  he  affirms,  would  have  needed  no  secular  authority ;  for 
the  Holy  Spirit  teaches  them  to  injure  no  one,  to  love  all  men, 
etc.  No  law  has  been  given,  according  to  i  Tim.  i.  9,  for  the 
righteous  man.^ 

But  in  all  the  above  descriptions  of  the  secular  power  and 
authority  as  a  holy  ordinance  of  God,  it  is  yet  everywhere  repre- 
sented as  merely  secular  and  external  in  its  character.  It  is  an 
earthly  peace  which  it  is  to  promote.  It  is  temporal  affairs  only 
which  it  is  to  administer.  This  is  the  position  maintained  by 
Luther,  even  in  his  later  years.  He  places  the  office  of  the 
preacher  as  far  above  that  of  the  civil  magistrate  as  eternal  life 
transcends  in  dignity  and  importance  the  temporal  life.  The 
latter  office  he  designates,  indeed,  a  shadow — but  only  a  shadow, 
or  a  figure — of  the  dominion  of  Christ.*  Souls  and  consciences, 
he  holds,  are  eternal  things,  which  it  would  be  shameful  to 
attempt  to  govern  with  worldly  laws.  He  denies,  accordingly, 
that  the  Emperor  has  anything  to  do  with  the  Commandments 
in  the  first  table  of  the  Decalogue,  which  treat  of  the  attitude  of 
the  soul  toward  its  God  ;  he  can  rise  no  higher  than  to  the  Fourth 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  73  sqq.,  80.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  1S6. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  326.     Op.  Ex.,  xx,  66;  cf.  .supra,  p.  476. 
3 Op.  Ex.,  i,  130.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  66  sq. 

*  In  regard  to  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  cf.  supra,  p.  423  .sq. 


484  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Commandment.-  He  refers  the  sphere  of  the  secular  power, 
as  a  secular  sphere,  to  the  domain  of  reason,  and  often  cites 
heathen  rulers  as  models  for  secular  government.  The  reason 
and  natural  wisdom  implanted  by  God  have  produced  laws  and 
institutions  of  justice  and  all  fine  arts.  The  Holy  Spirit  does 
not  provide  and  establish  secular  ordinances,  but  merely  approves 
of  such  laws,  as  He  does  of  the  fine  arts,  as  the  finest  and  noblest 
treasure  of  the  temporal  life  of  man.^  Accordingly,  he  condemns 
the  Anabaptists,  who  think  that  the  Holy  Spirit  changes  political 
laws,  and  who  therefore  attempt  to  overthrow  the  existing  secular 
government,  and  rejects  likewise  the  revived  Judaism  which  would 
substitute  the  laws  of  Moses  for  the  imperial  statutes.^  Yet  he 
very  soon  after  this  approved,  -and  even  promoted,  an  intrusion 
of  the  secular  government  upon  the  sphere  of  ecclesiastical  affairs 
in  the  interest  of  the  Reformation.  There  was  not,  as  might 
appear,  an  extension  of  the  imperial  authority  over  spiritual 
affairs,  and  that,  too,  in  a  broad  general  sense,  involved  already  in 
the  language  of  his  Resol.  super  Propos.  XII I.,  etc.,  of  A.  D.  15 19  : 
"  The  Emperor  outranks  all  others  in  temporal  things  and  even 
in  sacred  things  "  {etiam  sacris)  ;  for  "  sacris  "  here  must  evidently 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  immediate  context,  which 
treats  of  the  "  person  and  affairs  (property)  of  ecclesiastics," 
and  in  which  spiritual  affairs,  such  as  the  administration  of  the 
Word  and  sacraments,  are  specifically  mentioned  in  contrast 
with  the  matters  said  to  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Em- 
peror.* But  there  was  certainly  a  summons  to  such  an  intrusion 
into  the  spiritual  sphere  in  the  Address  to  the  No/ulit}\^  We 
propose,  however,  to  trace  more  carefully  and  elucidate  the 
further  development  of  these  principles  in  Luther's  teaching  in 
connection  with  the  presentation  of  his  doctrine  concerning  the 
Church  and  ecclesiastical  affairs.  We  will  there  obsen-e  that  he 
yet  always  firmly  maintains  the  distinction  between  the  spiritual 
and  the  secular,  or  temporal. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XX,  24  sq.  ;  xii,  21 ;   xxii,  82  sqq.,  142  sq. ;  xx,  268;   xxvi,  27. 

'Cf.  supra,  p.  216.  Weimar.  Pred.,  59.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  326  sq. ;  xx,  29; 
xxxv,  381.     Op.   Ex.,  XX,  66. 

'  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  102  sq.     Supra,  p.  34  sqq. 

*  Loscher,  iii,  171,  173;  cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  308  sq.  (differing  from  Schenkel, 
Wesen  des  Protestantismus,  Second  Edition,  p.  681    sq.). 

5  Vol.  I.,  p.  375. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  485 

There  remains  but  little  of  a  special  character  which  we  need 
stop  to  notice,  as  having  any  significant  bearing  upon  Luther's 
fundamental  conception  of  the  subject,  in  addition  to  his  general 
apprehension  of  the  proper  status  of  the  state,  or  civil  govern- 
ment, and  the  moral  obligations  involved. 

Whilst  demanding  obedience  to  every  existing  civil  authority, 
and  allowing  full  play  for  reason  in  the  framing  of  laws,  it  is  par- 
ticularly noticeable  that  Luther  does  not  regard  the  moiiair/iical 
form  of  government  as  an  absolutely  essential  one.'  And  when 
we  observe  him  applying  his  general  principle  specifically  to 
Germany,  and  finding  here  established  rather  a  certain  form  of 
"  aristocratic  "'  government,  we  have  the  clue  to  the  explanation 
of  his  declarations  in  regard  to  che  resistance  which  he  counts 
it  lawful  for  the  imperial  princes  to  offer  to  the  secular  power  of 
the  Emperor.  He  had  at  first  stoutly  denied  the  right  of  such 
resistance,  even  in  case  the  Emperor  should  treat  the  princes 
with  manifest  injustice  ;  but  he  afterwards — and  that  just  when, 
after  the  formation  of  the  Smalcald  League,  the  matter  had 
assumed  a  very  practical  form — granted  the  existence  of  such  a 
right.  When  he  then  heard  the  jurists  deducing  the  propriety 
and  legality  of  such  resistance  directly  from  the  existing  imperial 
laws  themselves,  and  from  the  very  constitution  of  the  Empire, 
he  too  acceded  to  the  claim,  casting  the  responsibility,  however, 
upon  those  whose  duty  it  is,  by  virtue  of  their  special  calling,  to 
decide  such  legal  questions.  Together  with  the  arguments  thus 
adduced  to  justify  resistance,  appeal  is  also  taken  to  the  fact  that 
the  war  which  was  then  threatening  the  princes  of  the  empire 
was  being  instigated,  not  really  by  the  Emperor,  but  by  the 
Pope.'^  But  the  right  of  resistance  thus  granted  was  admitted  in 
the  case  of  the  imperial  princes  only  in  view  of  their  legal  and 
constitutional  position.  The  territorial  nobility,  who  have  no 
such  legal  rights  as  against  their  prince,  could  not,  it  was  held, 
thus  protect  their  subjects  against  the  papal  sovereigns.  Indi- 
vidual subjects  are  still  always  instructed  to  endure,  for  the  sake 
of  the  Gospel,  the  violence  and  wrong  perpetrated  by  their 
secular  rulers.     The  maxim,  that  "  wicked  authority  is  still  always 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  92  sq. ;   cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  363  sq. 

^Cf.  for  instances  after  A.  D.,  153 1  :  Briefe,  iv,  213  (Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  266 
sq.);  vi,  225  (Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  269  sq.)  ;  iv,  221  sq.,  233  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv, 
13  sqq. ;   iii,  58.     Briefe,  vi,  223  sq.,  v,  139.     Jena,  i,  562  sq. 


486  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

authority  in  the  sight  of  God,"  is  held  to  be  universally  applicable 
— in  opposition  to  the  opinion,  that  "  he  who  so  conducts  himself 
hi  the  administration  of  government  that  men  must  fear  him  if 
they  do  right  is  no  ruler  in  the  sight  of  God."  '  The  positions 
asserted  by  Luther  in  a  deliverance  of  A.  D.  1539  would,  indeed, 
have  led  us  still  further,  if  he  had  himself  carried  them  out  to 
their  natural  consequences.  To  the  question,  whether  the  civil 
government  was  under  obligation  to  protect  its  subjects  even 
against  the  Emperor,  the  reply  is  there  given  :  that  the  Gospel 
confirms  also  natural  (and  legal,  positive)  rights.  Every  father 
is,  beyond  doubt,  under  obligation  to  protect  his  wife  and  child 
against  public  murder  by  every  means  in  his  power ;  and  there 
is  no  difference  between  a  private  murderer  and  the  Emperor, 
if  the  latter  outside  of  his  office  undertakes  to  exercise  illegal 
power,  and,  particularly,  openly  or  notoriously  illegal  power — 
since  open  violence  cancels  all  obligations  between  the  subject 
and  his  ruler  by  the  law  of  nature  {jure  fiaturae)  ?  Upon  this^ 
theory,  it  would  be  necessary  to  inquire,  first  of  all,  how  far  the 
sphere  of  official  jurisdiction  in  any  particular  case  extends. 
Whenever  anv  ruler  should  then  be  found  overstepping  the  limits 
of  his  authority  with  open  violence,  it  would  be  the  duty,  of  every 
person  at  least  whose  province  it  is  to  guard  the  interests  of 
others,  as,  for  example,  a  father,  to  oppose  such  usurpation ;  and 
this  would  be  but  the  exercise  of  a  natural  right.  But,  in 
announcing  the  above  principle,  Luther  was  concerned  only  for 
the  establishment  of  the  right  of  the  princes  of  the  empire  to 
resist  the  encroachments  of  the  imperial  power,  without  stopping 
to  carry  out  his  theory  to  its  natural  consequences  in  other  direc- 
tions, or  to  note  the  limitations  which  it  might  be  necessary  to 
make  in  its  general  application. 

The  law  which  is  to  be  administered  by  secular  rulers  consists 
essentially,  according  to  Luther,  in  particular,  external  ordi- 
nances. In  regard  to  its  application,  he  frequently  repeats  the 
admonition,  that,  as  no  particular  ordinance  can  foresee  all  the 
peculiar  cases  that  may  arise,  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  must 
always  be  interpreted  and  tempered  in  accordance  with  the  actual 
circumstances  in  any  given  case,  and  with  the  intention  of  the 

^  Briefe,  iv,  428  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  v,  266  sqq.     Briefe,  iv,  390. 
'^  Ibid.,  vi,  223. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  487 

supposed  transgressor.  The  same  principle  must  control  parents 
in  the  government  of  the  family.  Moderation,  or  clemency 
(^ETTiEiKEia) ,  should  therefore  always  go  hand  in  hand  with  law  and 
justice.  All  conduct,  finally,  should,  even  in  the  spjhere  of  the 
law,  be  prompted  by  love,  which,  as  we  have  been  told,  is  superior 
to  legal  enactments.  In  love,  the  individual  is  to  be  willing  also 
to  surrender  his  legal  rights,  a  course  which  Luther  commends  as 
likewise  demanded  by  Christian  "  moderation."  ' 

Luther's  conception  of  the  constitution  and  authority  of  civil 
government,  as  ordained  of  God,  determined  also  his  views  in 
regard  to  the  enduring  of  wrong,  to  which  Christians  are  exhorted 
in  Matt.  v.  39  sqq.'^  The  course  there  prescribed,  it  must  be 
first  of  all  observed,  is  not  binding  upon  those  entrusted  with 
civil  authority  in  so  far  as  they  are  considered,  not  as  simple 
Christians,  but  in  their  special  and  official  calling.  Still  further, 
it  is  the  province  of  the  individual,  in  so  far  as  he  is  not  merely 
a  Christian,  but  also  a  member  of  the  secular  political  organiza- 
tion, to  make  known  the  evil  deeds  of  those  in  authority,  in  order 
to  check  abuses,  and  even,  under  the  sanction  of  the  govern- 
ment, to  himself  offer  resistance  when  necessary.  But  the  private 
citizen  dare  never  under  any  circumstances  take  passionate 
revenge  upon  his  own  account ;  and,  in  all  cases,  the  first  duty 
is  that  of  considerate  and  long-suffering  love.  Thus,  here  again, 
we  find  no  room  for  the  traditional  distinction  between  co?isiHa 
and  praecepta? 

We  have  now  reviewed,  in  a  general  way,  the  entire  sphere  of 
activity  within  which  the  moral  life  of  the  believer  moves  on 
earth.  His  is  not  a  monastic  and  contemplative,  but  a  constantly 
active  life.  The  works  of  the  Christian  within  this  sphere  are 
holy  and  good,  in  so  far  as  they  are  performed  in  faith  and  in 
accordance  with  the  Word  of  God,  who  has  instituted  all  the 
various  orders  of  society.  Christ  has  Himself,  by  His  own  life 
and  deeds,  purified  and  hallowed  the  entire  earthly  life  of  man.* 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  112;  xxii,  256  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  xi,  121  sq.,  125 ;  iii,  198,  201. 
Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  53^ 

*Vol.  I.,  P.)  185  sq. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxji,  72  sqq.,  81;  iii,  51  sqq.;  xliii,  3  sqq.,  14,  37  sq.,  113, 
124  sqq.,  131,  135  sqq.,  211;  1,  315  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  v,  165;  xxiii,  415  sqq. 
Jena,  i,  562  b  sq. 

*  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  283,  29  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  367 ;  iv,  337  ;  xix,  352 
sqq. ;  cf.  supra,  p.  366  sq. 


488  THE    THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

In  the  case  of  believers,  moreover,  who  are  new  creatures,  all 
good  works  are  performed  freely  and  naturally,  even  though  they 
conform  to  the  requirements  of  the  external  statutes.  We  cannot 
properly  say  that  a  believer  oiigJit  to  perform  good  works,  just  as 
we  cannot  rightly  say  that  the  sun  ought  to  shine,  or  that  a  good 
tree  ought  to  bear  good  fruit.  The  sun  shines  and  the  good  tree 
bears  good  fruit  as  a  matter  of  course  {cie facto).  "  Those  legal 
phrases  do  not  reach  hither."  ^ 

We  are  thus  brought  back  again,  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
general  course  of  life  in  which  the  Christian  manifests  his  char- 
acter, to  the  recognition  of  his  /////,  perfect  and  glorious  liberty. 
He  is  free  in  his  conscience  from  the  curse  of  sin  and  the  law. 
He  stands  free,  exalted  in  his  conscience  before  God  above  all 
laws,  since  no  appointed  work  is  needed  to  secure  his  salvation 
and  he  is  bound  to  no  particular  work,  but  all  works  that  call  for 
his  attention  are  alike  to  him.  He  remains  free,  likewise,  in  his 
relations  with  his  fellowmen — free  in  the  service  to  which  he 
devotes  himself ;  free  in  his  faith,  in  view  of  which  no  human 
ordinance  can  longer  bind  his  conscience ;  free  in  the  love  which 
subjects  itself  to  laws,  yet  at  the  same  time  remains  the  mistress 
enthroned  above  all  laws." 

^Tischr.,  ii,  152  (to  Melanchthon). 

2Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  288  sq.,  349.  Erl.  Ed.,  x,  160;  viii,  54;  cf.  supra, 
Vol.  I.,  pp.  398  sq.,  410  sqq.,  452  sq.  The  doctrine  concerning  Christian 
liberty,  especially  as  related  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Church,  remains  precisely 
the  same  as  defined  in  Vol.  I.,  p.  418  sq. ;  Vol.  II.,  p.  34  sq.  Cf.,  e.  g., 
Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  60  sqq.,  1 13  sqq.;  xix,  200  sqq.,  and,  still  further,  in  our  Eighth 
Chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE    MEANS    OF    GRACE. 


It  is  the  Holy  Spirit  wlio  begets  in  the  believer  the  new  life 
which  we  have  been  contemplating,  and  who,  from  the  very 
beginning  of  his  religious  experience,  awakens  faith  within  him. 
It  is  precisely,  also,  in  this  faith,  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  the  Christian  possesses,  enjoys  and  puts  into  practice  the 
new  life,  clinging  constantly  to  Christ,  the  Reconciler,  and  ever 
learning  to  apprehend  Him  more  fully.  Christ  is  now,  however, 
continually  presented,  and  the  blessings  of  His  redemption  im- 
parted, in  the  objective,  external  Word  and  in  the  sacraments. 
The  Spirit  desires  to  work  only  through  these  Means  of  Grace. 

We  have  already,  in  the  second  chapter  of  our  Third  Book, 
found  Luther  treatuig  prominently  and  expressly  the  questions, 
whether,  and  in  how  far,  we  are  bound  to  these  means,  and  with- 
out them  cannot  come  to  God  nor  secure  the  salvation  offered. 
His  utterances  upon  this  point  have  also  claimed  our  attention  in 
connection  with  his  general  doctrine  of  the  relation  between 
God,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  human  race  and  the  world  upon 
the  other. 

God  is,  indeed,  in  His  essential  nature,  everywhere — in  and 
above  all  things.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  we  yet 
have  Him.  If  He  is  to  have  any  existence /f^r  us,  to  be  recog- 
nized by  us,  and,  still  further,  to  impart  to  us  His  grace,  and 
to  enter  Himself,  through  Christ  and  His  Spirit,  into  our  hearts, 
He  must  first  make  it  possible  for  us  to  find  Him  :  and  for  this 
purpose  He  commonly  employs  as  means  external,  created  things. 

Hence,  tlie  true  and  special  revelation  of  His  grace,  with  its 
life-giving  power,  must  be  sought  precisely  in  the  particular 
means  in  which  it  is  offered  to  us.  Even  the  special  mediation 
of  the  announcement  of  salvation  and  the  active  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  these  means  of  grace  find  their  basis,  still  fur- 
ther, in  the  fact,  that  it  is  the  general  plan  of  God  to  exert  His 

(489) 


490 


THE    THEOLOGY       OF    LUTHER. 


energy  in  behalf  of  His  creatures  and  for  their  preservation 
through  the  agency  of  other  created  things.'  The  visible  form 
{forma  visibilis)  in  which  God  presents  Himself  is  thus  for  us,  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  incarnate  Son.  But  Christ  Himself  is 
now  to  be  sought  for  by  us  precisely  where  He  desires  us  to 
recognize  and  find  Him,  /.  c,  in  the  visible  forms  of  His  Word, 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  is  here  that  we  are  to  have 
Him  nearest  to  us,  so  that  we  may  reach  out  to  Him,  touch  Him, 
feel  Him.  We  dare  not  despise  these  external  things  as  mere 
created  objects.  It  is  "  the  Word,  baptism,  sacrament,  of  God 
Himself."  Thus  it  is  His  design  to  deal  with  us,  not  in  His  clear 
and  unclouded  majesty,  which  our  weak  flesh  could  not  endure 
for  a  single  moment,  but  through  endurable,  appropriate  and  de- 
lightful means,  than  which  we  could  ourselves  have  selected  no 
better.  And  as  He  in  these  means  announces  to  us  His  pres- 
ence, so  He  desires  also  through  them  to  work  effectually  within 
us  by  His  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  only  as  we  hold  faithfully  to  them 
that  even  our  prayers  are  accepted.^ 

The  first  of  these  means  is  always  represented  to  be 

I,   The  Word. 

CHANNEL    FOR    HOLY    SPIRIT RELATION    TO    REJECTORS THE    ORAL 

WORD AS    PREACHED    TO    THE    UNGODLY THE    LAW   STILL   TO    BE 

PREACHED ITS     SPECIFIC     NATURE CIVIL    AND    SPIRITUAL     USE 

CANNOT     PRODUCE     EVANGELICAL     REPENTANCE OBLIGATION     AND 

LIBERTY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN BLESSINGS  CONFERRED  BY  THE  WORD. 

After  his  experience  with  the  fanatical  agitators,  Luther  was 
accustomed  to  repeat  over  and  over  again,  with  the  greatest  pos- 
sible emphasis,  the  assertion,  that  the  Boly  Spirit  comes  in  no 
other  way  than  through  the  Word.  He  even  endeavors  to  trace 
a  mediation  of  the  divine  call  through  the  external  Word  in  the 
case,  for  example,  of  Abraham,  although  the  Scriptures  do  not  so 
inform  us.  He  thinks  that  the  call  may  have  been  brought  to 
Abraham  by  the  patriarch  Shem,  or  messengers  sent  by  him.* 

'Supra,  pp.  213,  218  sq.,  120,  327. 

«0p.  Ex.,  iv,  84.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  2  sqq.  ;  xxv,  380  sq. ;  iv,  70  sq.  Supra, 
p.  44. 

3  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  84  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  49 1 

He  highly  lauds,  in  the  face  of  those  who  despise  the  Word,  its 
significance  and  power,  as  being  in  its  very  outward  simplicity 
and  weakness  the  mighty  instrument  of  the  Spirit.  He  compares 
it  to  a  conduit,  through  which  the  Spirit  must  enter  the  heart  in 
order  there  to  exercise  His  power,  just  as  he  had  already,  in  the 
First  Commentary  upon  Galaiians,  called  it  the  vehicle  iyVehiai- 
lu>fi)  of  grace.  It  is,  when  preached,  says  he,  a  stream  that 
accomplishes  many  and  great  things.  It  is,  according  to  Rom. 
i.  1 6,  divine  power  itself.  It  is  itself  (according  to  John  vi.  63) 
spiritual  and  spirit.  In  so  far  as  one  clings  to  it,  he  himself 
becomes  and  is  spirit.  Where  the  Word  is  employed,  there  God 
Himself  is  present  in  the  mouth  of  the  speaker,  to  obliterate 
sin,  death  and  hell.  The  divine  power  which  is  needful  to 
accomplish  this  cannot  come  to  us  in  any  other  way  than  "  in 
and  through  the  Word.''  In  order  to  indicate  the  power  of  this 
oral  proclamation  of  the  Gospel,  St.  John  employs,  in  speaking 
of  Christ,  the  figure  of  the  Word  (not,  for  example,  that  of  the 
brightness,  or  divine  image),  and  designates  Him  by  the  term 
which  expresses  the  highest  thing  which  He  does  and  is.'  If, 
indeed,  many  fail  to  believe  the  Word  which  they  hear,  that  fact? 
according  to  Luther,  detracts  nothing  from  the  character  of  the 
Word ;  it  is,  none  the  less,  only  through  the  Word  that  faith  can 
enter  the  heart.  So,  likewise,  the  soil  can  produce  no  fruit 
without  the  seed,  although  the  seed  does  not  always  take  root 
and  grow,  the  fault,  in  that  case,  lying  not  in  the  seed,  but  in  the 
soil.  Yet  the  Word  will  always  bring  forth  fruit  in  the  lives  of  at 
least  some  of  those  who  hear  it,  according  to  Isa.  Iv.  11.  It 
produces  results,  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  refuse  to  receive 
it :  they  are  hardened  by  it,  just  as  by  the  rays  of  the  one  sun 
good  things  are  softened,  but  evil  things,  like  dung,  are  made 
hard.  For  the  ungodly,  the  Word  is  a  stone  of  stumbling,  a  hail- 
storm, a  Word  of  perdition.^  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  deduce 
from  the  writings  of  Luther  any  positive  or  more  precise  defini- 
tion of  the  relation  between  the  Spirit  who  works  through  the 
Word  and  the  instrument  thus  employed.     The  explanation  of 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  138;  xlv,  358;  xlviii,  205  ;  xv,  417.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii, 
259.  Supra,  p.  44.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlviii,  70  sqq.  ;  xv,  140  sqq.  ;  cf.  supra,  Vol.  I., 
pp.  126  sq  ,  187  ;  Vol.  II.  p.  315. 

''Erl.  Ed.,  1,  251;  X,  250;  li,  78;  ii,  150;  xvii,  35  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  xxii, 
268  sq.;  xviii,  88  sq. 


492  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

this  is  to  be  found  in  his  conception  of  the  relation  existing 
between  the  grace  of  God  and  the  human  subject,  as  presented 
in  the  above-cited  passages.  The  latter  represent  the  two  as 
always  most  intimately  associated.  It  is  not  merely  the  relation 
of  a  conduit  to  the  water  flowing  through  it,  but  that  of  the  seed 
to  the  life-  principle  within  it.  As  Luther  says  of  the  external 
Word,  that  it  must  always  be  with  the  Spirit,  so  he  declares  also 
of  the  Spirit,  that  He  will  always  be  with  the  Word.^  When  he 
says  that,  along  with  (^neben)  the  external  announcement  of  the 
Gospel,  the  Spirit  writes  it  also  inwardly  upon  the  heart,^  we 
must,  according  to  the  other  utterances,  understand  that  that 
which  occurs  thus  along  luith  the  preaching  of  the  Word  takes 
place  also  through  it  as  a  means.  \\'hen  he  says  ^  that  the 
external  Word  must  precede,  and  that  afterwards,  if  we  have 
meanwhile  received  the  Word  with  the  ear  and  taken  it  to  heart, 
the  Holy  Ghost  comes  and  gives  the  Word  power  to  take  firm 
hold  upon  us,  it  must  be  added,  in  accordance  with  the  declara- 
tions immediately  preceding  in  that  passage,  that  faith  itself — by 
which  we  are  to  understand  precisely  the  true  reception  of  the 
Word  into  the  heart — is  a  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  accomplished 
through  the  agency  of  the  Word. 

But  how  is  it  with  those  ///  whom  the  Spirit  nevertheless  does 
not  exert  His  power  to  heget  faitJi  ?  Is  He,  in  such  cases  also, 
with  and  in  the  Word?  Is  the  lack  of  faith,  in  such  instances, 
really  the  fault  of  the  individuals  in  question,  who  do  not  allow 
the  energy  which  here  approaches  them  as  well  as  others  in  the 
Word  to  attain  its  designed  result?  We  are  thus  brought  again 
face  to  face  with  the  questions  which  met  us  at  an  earlier  point 
in  our  investigations.*  In  accordance  with  the  positions  taken  in 
the  treatise,  De  servo  arhitrio,  we  should  be  compelled  to 
answer :  The  cause  of  such  lack  of  faith  lies  in  the  will  of  God, 
who,  in  these  cases,  certainly  did  not  desire  that  His  Spirit  should 
work  effectually,  although  the  Word  was  there  present.^      And 

»  Ell.  Ed.,  li,  98;  ii,  150.  ^  \\^^^_^  xxiii,  250. 

*  Ibid.,  XV,  415  sq.  *  Supra,  pp.  290  sqq.,  299  sqq. 

*Vol.  I.,  pp.  487  sq.,  500. 

6Cf.  also  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  297  (probably,  A.  D.  1524):  "When  this  (the 
proclamation  of  the  Gospel)  sounds  in  the  ears,  the  Holy  Spirit  enters  the 
hearts  (of  men)  with  the  Word  where  he  will ;  for  He  does  not  breathe  upon 
all,  and  hence  neither  do  all  accept  [fassen)  it." 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW,  493 

even  in  later  periods,  when  Luther  was  accustomed  so  earnestly 
to  invite  his  hearers  to  accept  the  salvation  proffered  to  all  in 
the  Word,  we  still  find,  side  by  side  with  such  exhortations, 
the  assertion  repeated,  that  God  by  his  Spirit  through  the  Word 
works  faith  as  and  where  He  will.^  We  still  naturally  inquire  : 
Mas'  God  then,  in  those  cases  in  which  He  does  not  choose  to 
give  faith,  really  dissolved  the  connection  between  His  Spirit  and 
the  external  ^Vord — somewhat  as  the  water  may  be  withdrawn 
from  a  conduit?  Or,  are  we  to  understand  that  there  is  always 
combined  with  the  Word  a  divine  power,  a  power,  however, 
which  works  as  a  liberating  and  renewing  Spirit  only  where  God 
so  determines,  while  in  other  cases  itself  leading  to  a  rejection 
of  the  truth  and  a  hardening  of  the  heart — although  Luther  in 
his  later  years  utterly  refused  to  acknowledge  the  latter  result  as 
included  in  the  purpose  of  God?'^  To  these  questions  the 
writings  of  Luther  furnish  no  further  reply.  We  are  here,  he 
acknowledges,  in  the  presence  of  a  mystery,  and  should  not 
attempt  to  discover  why  some  hear  and  others  do  not.^  We 
should  be  satisfied,  he  contends,  with  that  which  has  a  practical 
bearing  upon  our  own  lives — should  see  to  it  that  we  experience 
in  ourselves  the  renewing  power  of  that  Word  whose  hour  (in 
which  to  be  impressed  upon  the  heart  by  divine  power)  will 
certainly  yet  come  to  him  who  conscientiously  perseveres* — with- 
out worrying  over  the  question  whether  God  Himself  may  have 
determined  to  work  in  us  the  required  spiritual  energy  and  per- 
severance. But  we  here  again,  as  we  for  the  last  time  touch 
upon  this  dark  sphere  of  mystery  unsolved  in  the  writings  of 
Luther,  would  lay  particular  stress  upon  the  significant  fact,  that 
the  positions  which  he  assumed  upon  these  perplexing  questions 
had  for  their  real  and  deepest  basis,  not  any  metaphysical  or 
philosophical  premises,  but  his  religious  interest  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  that  absolute  supremacy  of  the  simple  grace  of  God 
which  alone  can  bring  to  us,  as  sinful  men,  the  possibility  and 
assurance  of  salvation,  and  to  which,  therefore,  eveii  our  faith,  or 
our  inward  hearing  and  reception  of  the  Word,  must  be  absolutely 
and  exclusively  attributed. 

1  Supra,  p.  300,  and  especially,  Briefe,  v,  70.  ^Op.  Ex.,  xxii,  269. 

'  Supra,  p.  299.     Briefe,  iii,  393  sq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  353  sq.  ;  cf.  supra,  p.  434. 


494  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

We  note  a  further  characteristic  feature  of  Luther's  teaching 
in  the  importance  which  he  attaches  to  the  oral,  or  preached 
Word.  We  may  see  in  this,  primarily,  a  contrast  to  a  Hfeless 
holding  of  the  divine  Word  in  possession  "by  the  Church,  without 
the  employment  or  understanding  of  it,  or  to  the  much-lauded 
'•  inward  word  "  of  the  fanatics.  But  he  sets  in  contrast  also 
with  an  intelligent  and  believing  study  of  the  Scriptures,  the 
value  of  which  he  fully  (following  i  Tim.  iv.  3)  acknowledges,^ 
the  entire  and  peculiar  value  and  power  of  the  Word  when  orally 
proclaimed.  Only  this  does  he  find  adequate  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  free,  living,  public  administration  of  the 
Spirit  under  the  new  covenant.  He  remarks,  that  the  living 
vv'ords  cannot  express  themselves  so  accurately  or  well  in  writing 
as  the  spirit,  or  soul,  of  man  can  express  them  through  the  mouth 
— as  Jerome  has  said  :  "  The  living  voice  has  a  mysterious  quality 
{nescio  quid)  of  latent  energy."  He  lays  particular  emphasis, 
also,  upon  the  divinely-chosen  method,  in  accordance  with  which 
the  Word  is  to  be  brought  to  us  through  the  official  ministrations 
of  His  servants  in  the  Church  and  through  the  agency  of  Chris- 
tian brethren  in  general.  It  is  just  in  this  form  that  we  are  to 
receive  it  with  special  confidence  as  a  divine  gift.  And  in  this 
form,  also,  it  is  included  in  the  general  plan  of  God  for  the 
administration  of  His  work  and  government  through  the  medium 
of  created  things.  It  was  thus,  indeed,  that  the  saving  Word 
was  first  revealed  to  Luther  himself  and  made  effectual  for  him 
in  the  Erfurt  monastery.^ 

The  Word  possesses  and  retains  its  power,  therefore,  even 
when  proclaimed  by  ungodly  men.  Luther  could  even  declare 
that  it  has  a  peculiar  advantage  under  such  circumstances,  since 
the  hearers  can  then  depend  only  upon  the  Word  itself,  and  are 
not  tempted  to  rely  upon  the  personal  sanctity  of  the  preacher. 
Yet  he  also  ardently  maintains  that  it  flows  with  special  energy, 
like  living  water,  from  the  lips  of  a  believing  brother,  according 
to  the  words  of  Jesus  :  "  From  whose  mouth  shall  flow  streams 
of  living  water."  ' 

'Cf.  in  Walch,  ix,  1062,  under  the  First  Epistle  of  John. 

"Vol.  I.,  p.  427.  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  360.  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  85.  Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  401  ; 
supra,  p.  242;  Erl.  Ed.,  x,  367;  xii,  156;  xxxvii,  67.  Op.  Ex.,  xi,  27;  cf. 
supra.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  62,  490  ;  Vol.  II.,  p.  32S  sq. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  37;  supra,  p.  56.      Erl.  Ed.,  xlviii,  206  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  495 

All  that  has  thus  far  been  said  concerning  the  Word  of  God 
has  primary  and  special  reference  to  that  Word  as  a  proclamation 
of  the  Gospel  message.  It  is  as  such  that  it  begets  faith,  and 
brings  with  it  the  Holy  Spirit  and  all  heavenly  blessings.  We 
have  frequently  found  Luther  ascribing  these  effects  directly  to 
the  Gospel.'  In  the  same  connections, we  have  had  occasion  to 
note  also  the  position  of  the  Law  as  related  to  the  Gospel.  This 
was  brought  to  our  notice  particularly  as  involved  in  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  repentance  which  is  always  associated  with  faith."'^ 
We  must  now  examine  more  carefully  the  definitions  concerning 
the  Law,  with  special  reference  to  the  controversies  which  arose 
in  the  attempt  to  determine  its  precise  relations  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith. 

For  the  historical  determination  and   exposition  of   Luther's 
doctrine  of  the  Law,  especial  importance  attaches  to  his  relations 
with   Carlstadt,^  and  afterwards  with  Agricola,   who  originated 
the  leading  controversy  upon  the  subject  in  A.  D.  1537.     There 
are   various  points  at  which  utterances  of  Luther  might  have 
suggested  the  view,  that,  now  that  the  Gospel  had  been  promul- 
gated,   the  preaching  of  the  Law   could   no   longer  under  any 
circumstances  be  justified.     In    terms    absolutely  universal — or 
apparently  so,  at  least — Luther    declares,   for  example  :    '*  The 
doctrine  of  the  Law  is  to  be  omitted  "  ;  *  "  If  the  Law  is  present, 
then  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  present,   nor   any  piety;  if  He  is 
present,  then  can  no  Law  be  present "  ;  ^  "  He  who  is  truly  a 
Christian  has  no  need  of  moral  precepts."  ®     But  if  the  believer, 
or  righteous  man,  is  free  from  the  Law,  should  not  conversion |\ 
also  be  accomplished  without  the  aid  of  the  Law,  inasmuch  as,'/ 1 
upon  the  one  hand,  the  Gospel  itself  also  reveals  the  wrath  ofll 
God  against  sin,'  and,  upon  the  other  hand,  repentance  is  not  to/  I 
be  produced  by  fear  of  the  penalties  threatened  in  the  Law,  bui  1 
is  to  spring  from  love  toward  God  and  righteousness?^     These 
objections  were  confirmed,  finally,  by  the  positive  utterances  of 
Luther  as  to  the  actual  invalidity  of  the  Old  Testament,  Mosaic 

iCf.  supra,  pp.  208  sq.,  30  sq.,  44.  *  Supra,  p.  430  sq. 

3  Supra,  p,  30  sqq.  *Jena.,  ii,  519,  A.  D.  1521. 

5  Erl.  Ed.,  li,  297,  A.  D.  1524.  6  Briefe,  vi,  20. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  127,  to  which  passage  Agricola  appealed.     Cf.  Jena,  i,  554. 

^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  162  sq.,  190  sq.,  264,  324. 


496  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Law  as  such,  and  even  of  the  Decalogue  itself.'  Agricola  main- 
tained, accordingly,  that  repentance  must  be  taught  "  not  from 
the  Law,  but  from  the  violent  treatment  of  the  Son  revealed  in 
the  Gospel." 

Luther  would  not  admit  any  conclusions  drawn  from  the  sup- 
posed fact  that  he  had  himself  at  an  earlier  day  expressed  himself 
as  opposed  to  any  preaching  of  the  Law  in  the  Church,  as  it  was 
to  be  expected  that  he,  like  others,  should  make  progress  in  his 
apprehension  of  the  truth.  But  he  denies  that  he  ever  taught 
such  a  doctrine,  and  claims  that  all  his  writings  bear  testimony 
to  the  contrary.'  We,  too,  can  find  in  his  utterances,  from  the 
very  beginning  of  his  labors  as  a  Reformer,  when  fairly  com- 
pared with  one  another,  no  other  principles  than  those  which,  as 
we  shall  now  have  occasion  to  observe,  he  afterwards  still  more 
clearly  affirmed  and  illustrated  in  his  controversies  with  the 
Antinomians. 

What  is,  in  Luther's  conception,  the  specific  nature  of  the  Law  ? 
He  had,  it  must  be  admitted,  in  the  earliest  of  his  pre-reforma- 
tion  writings,  so  conceived  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  as  to 
include  under  the  latter  reproofs  designed  to  lead  to  repentance, 
and  under  the  former  the  entire  plan  of  salvation.  Yet,  even 
here,  the  Law  is  regarded  as  distinctively  the  demanding  and 
commanding  will  of  God,  and  that  will,  moreover,  as  addressing 
itself  to  men  in  their  inward  alienation  from  Him.  Thus  the 
Law  appears  as,  in  its  own  actual  character,  an  announcement  of 
punishment,  wrath  and  perdition.  If  he  then,  indeed,  again 
includes  the  revelation  of  this  divine  will  under  the  Gospel,  it  is 
yet  only  as  the  '•'  strange  work  "  of  the  latter.  Thus  we  must 
interpret,  for  example,  the  passage  in  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  127.  Accord- 
ingly, as  the  Gospel,  or  proclamation  of  grace,  appears  already 
under  the  old  covenant,  so  we  find  Law  also  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  but  we  are  not  therefore  to  conclude  that  this  Law  has  itself 
become  Gospel.  It  still,  even  here,  remains  a  word  of  command, 
and  particularly  a  word  of  rebuke,  condemning  sin,  as,  for 
example,  even  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  most  strikingly  in  the 
revelation  and  sacrificial  death  of  the  Son  of  God.  Nowhere,  in 
fact,  have  we  a  more  impressive  revelation  of  the  wrath  of  God 
than  just  here.     Our  sin  and  the  wrath  of  God  are  brought  to 

^  Supra,  pp.  34,  37.  "^  Ell.  Ed.,  xxxii,  7. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW. 


497 


light,  finally,  by  the  manifold  gifts  of  our  merciful  Heavenly 
Father — in  so  far  as  we  despise  these^  or  receive  them  without 
due  thankfulness.  In  all  these  instances  we  have  then,  in  so  far, 
not,  as  Agricola  thought,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  but  the 
proclamation  of  wrath,  or  legal  preaching.  All  preaching  that 
announces  our  sins  and  the  wrath  of  God  is  a  preaching  of  the 
Law.^ 

Luther  always  maintains,  further,  that  the  Law  is  really  from 
God — by  Him  implanted  in  our  hearts,  and  by  Him  also  given 
to  Moses — and  that  it  is  therefore,  in  its  essential  nature,  goo 
and  holy ;  although  we  do  not,  it  is  true,  in  it  as  yet  hear  Go< 
speak  according  to  His  own  real  nature,  or  His  character  of  love. 
That  it  becomes  a  tormentor  to  us,  and  brings  death  upon  us,  is 
a  consequence  of  the  attitude  which  we,  as  carnal,  assume  toward 
it.  It  is  necessary  for  God  thus  to  accomplish  His  "  strange 
work"  upon  us  through  the  agency  of  the  Law  that  killeth.  We 
dare  draw  no  conclusions  reflecting  upon  the  divine  character  of 
the  Law  even  from  that  which  it  does  to  Christ,  or  from-  the  wrong 
which  it  perpetrates  upon  Him.'^ 

The  LiXiu  jnust  by  all  means  still  be  insisted  tt^on,  even  though 
the  Gospel  has  been  so  clearly  announced.  And  what  is  here 
claimed  has  reference,  moreover,  particularly  to  the. Law  as  con- 
tained in  the  Old  Testament  and  summarized  in  the  Decalogue. 
That  is  to  say,  as  we  have  heard  Luther  maintain,  particularly 
when  arguing  against  such  an  authority  of  the  Mosaic  statutes  as 
the  Fanatics  ascribed  to  them,  the  portion  of  the  Law  of  Moses 
which  is  identical  with  the  law  of  nature  must  remain  in  force. 
And  so  excellently  does  Luther  find  the  divine  commandments, 
which  carry  in  themselves  their  own  credentials  for  the  human 
heart,  expressed  in  the  Decalogue,  that  he  confesses  himself  but 
a  scholar  who  is  ever  but  beginning  to  understand  them.  It 
would  be  utterly  impossible,  at  any  rate,  to  tear  the  Law,  with  its 
reproofs,  out  of  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men,  as  may  be 
strikingly  seen  by  a  study  of  the  penitential  Psalms.^ 


lyol.  T.,  pp.  no  sq  ,  188  sq.  ;   Jena,  ii,  358  sq.,  507.     Supra,  p.  230. 
Ed.,  X,  86  sqq. ;  supra,  p.  241  sq. ;  Jena,  i,  557.     Erl.   Ed.,  xxxii,  7  sq ; 
115  sq. ;  xxxii,  5  sqq. ;   cf.  supra,  p.  398. 

^  Supra,  p.  232.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  271.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,    145. 

'  Supra,  p.  36  sq.     Briefe,  iv,  46.     Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  1 15  ;  xxxii,  5  sqq. 


Erl. 
xiii. 


498  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

But  in  discussing  the  question  as  to  the  prnrp''  ^^^^^  of  the  Law, 
we  must  discriminate  between  the  political  or  civil  use  and  the 
theological  or  spiritual} 

In  the  former  we  have  to  do  with  the  outward  restraint  to  be 
imposed  upon  the  wicked  by  the  authority  of  governments, 
parents  and  teachers,  for  the  preservation  of  pubhc  order  and 
peace.'^  We  may  here  take  into  consideration,  together  with 
divine  precepts,  also  the  concrete,  positive  expression  of  the  Law 
in  the  statutes  framed  by  the  exercise  of  mere  human  reason. 

We  are  at  present  concerned  only  with  the  second,  which  is  the 
most  necessary  and  really  characteristic,  use  of  the  divine  Law. 
Luther  is  accustomed  to  describe  it  briefly  as  that  application  of 
the  divine  precepts  by  which  sin  is  revealed  to  men,  /.  e.,  whereas 
they  would  by  mere  external  discipline  be  made  only  hypocrites, 
sin  is,  in  such  an  application  of  the  Law,  set  before  their  con- 
sciousness and  laid  upon  their  consciences,  together  with  the 
divine  wrath  impending  over  it.  The  Law  thus  reveals  to  man 
his  sin  and  misery,  death,  hell,  judgment,  etc.  And  this  is  to  be 
accomplished  in  order  that  the  crushed,  slain  heart  may  be 
prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  Word  of  life,  or  Gospel.  In 
this  is  to  be  already  recognized,  moreover,  as  Luther  had  long 
before  taught  and  now  reiterates  with  emphasis  in  his  controversy 
with  Agricola,  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  John 
xvi.  8.  "  And  it  is  false  (to  say)  that  the  Law  convinces  of  sin 
without  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  the  Law  was  written  by  the  finger 
of  God."  The  Holy  Spirit  may  be  said  to  have  no  part  in  this 
Work  only  in  the  sense  that  He  is  not  yet  present  in  such  a  way 
as  to  impart  Himself — or  to  exercise  His  characteristic  office  of 
drawing  the  hearts  of  men  to  God  and  giving  them  the  blissful 
sense  of  fellowship  with  Him.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  we  must 
interpret  the  statement  above  cited,  that  where  the  Law  is  the 
Spirit  is  not  present.'"*  Even  in  the  regenerate,  also,  the  flesh 
still  contends  against  the  Spirit ;  and  since  they  still  need  to 
repent  continually  on  accovmt  of  their  sins,  they  too  still  contin- 
ually require  the  preaching  of  the  Law.     Luther  had  so  main- 

'  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  60  sqq.  (A  leading  passage  also  in  elucidation  of  the 
points  yet  to  be  discussed  in  the  following  paragraphs.) 

''■  Briefe,  ii,  532  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  287. 

'  Vol  I.,  p.  90  ;  Briefe,  ii,  532  sq.  Supra,  p.  30.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  13  sqq.; 
XXV,  127  sq.  ;  supra,  p.  44;  Jena,  i,  555  b,  556  b. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  499 

tained  already  in  his  initial  reformatory  writing,  i.  e.,  his  First 
Commentary  upon  Galatians,  and  not,  as  Agricola  in  his  untem- 
pered  zeal  asserted,  only  in  the  Second  Cojnmentary  upon  that 
book.' 

Yet  Luther  had  maintained  that  true  contrition  and  repentance 
arise  only  from  love,  although  the  latter  can  spring  only  from  faith 
in  the  grace  and  love  of  God  and  from  the  inwardly  imparted 
Spirit  of  grace.  That  this  involves  no  contradiction  to  what  has 
been  above  said  may  be  understood  if  we  recall  our  former  solu- 
tion of  the  same  apparent  difficulty  by  the  citation  of  the  perfectly 
clear  later  utterances  of  Luther  upon  the  subject.  At  all  events, 
that  condition  of  heart  which  the  Law,  as  such,  produces  by  its 
denunciations  is  not  as  yet  true  Christian  contrition  and  repentance. 
Until  the  Word  of  grace,  and  faith,  and  the  Spirit  of  grace  appear, 
we  have  only  a  "  Cain's  repentance  "  :  we  are  at  enmity  with  God  ; 
the  Law  awakens  wrath  in  us,  and  makes  our  sin  but  the  greater. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Word  of  grace  would  produce  no 
fruit,  the  Spirit  gain  no  foot-hold,  good  resolutions  never  be 
enkindled— if  the  terms  of  the  Law  did  not  prepare  the  way. 
It  is  evidently,  therefore,  but  a  partial  statement  of  the  truth  to 
say  that  **  repentance  "  must  be  wrought  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Law.^ 

Luther  teaches,  finally,  that  the  Law  is  now  also  tojiejulfiled, 
i.  e.,  bv  true  believers,  however  incomplete  and  mingled  with  sin 
their  obedience  may  yet  actually  be.  We  must  yet  make  earnest 
effort  to  that  end.  We  are  to  learn  from  it  what  we  have  been, 
what  is  now  demanded  of  us,  and  what  we  are  yet  again  to 
become.'  References  to  this  phase  of  the  subject  are  seldom  met 
with  in  the  earlier  writings  of  Luther,  although  even  there  not 
entirely  wanting  ;*  and  even  in  his  later  writings,  when  urging  the 
importance  of  the  Law,  he  yet,  at  the  same  time,  always  insists 
most   earnestly   that  it  is  not  the  Law,  but  the  Spirit  working 

1  Vol.  I., p.  191.  Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  233  sq.  ;  i,  193  sq.  ;  ii,  60  sqq.  Jena, 
i.  557.  559  sq. 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  162,  190  sq  ,  264,  324  sq. ;  Vol.  II.,  p.  431  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv, 
128.     Jena,  i,  554  b;  cf.  also  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  13. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  41,  115;  xiv,   152  sqq. 

*  Cf.  in  the  previously  cited  passage,  Jena  ii,  519:  Officium  legis  est  non 
exigere  nostra  opera,  sed  ostendere  peccatum  et  impossibilitatem  nostram.  On 
the  other  hand,  see  Vol.  I.,  p.  191. 


500  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    I.UTHER. 

through  the  Gospel,  that  produces  good  works.  The  Law  of  itself 
without  this  Spirit,  he  maintains,  remains  for  us  a  mere  dead  and 
killing  letter.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  declare  that  the  Law,  even  in 
the  case  of  believers,  does  not  help,  but  only  demands.  The 
aim  of  our  obedience  to  the  Law  is  not  the  attainment  of  right- 
eousness before  God,  but  the  preservation  of  peace  in  worldly 
relations,  the  expression  of  gratitude  toward  God,  and  the  setting 
of  a  good  example  to  others.' 

We  can  see  from  this  what  Luther  means  when  he  speaks  of 
the  believer's  glorious  free  JojH  from  the  Law.'-  Above  all,  it  is  no 
longer  to  be  at  all  taken  into  the  account  in  the  matter  of  our 
justification  before  God,  or  the  relation  of  our  conscience  to  God, 
which  is  to  be  determined  by  faith  alone.  Just  as  Luther  holds 
that  no  works  can  here  be  at  all  considered,  so  is  the  Law  like- 
wise excluded.  We  are,  through  our  baptism  and  the  blood  of 
Christ,  absolutely  free  from  all  works  of  the  Law  and  are  righteous 
through  pure  grace,  by  which  alone  also  we  live  before  God. 
This  position  is  confirmed  by  the  citation  of  i  Tim.  i.  9.  Yea, 
he  declares,  "  the  Law  in  the  conscience  is  truly  diabolical, 
although  outside  of  the  conscience  we  ought  to  make  of  it  a  God, 
to  exalt  it  with  the  highest  praises,  and  call  it  holy,  good,  spirit- 
ual," etc.^  Furthermore,  since  for  the  believer  the  threatenings 
and  terrors  of  the  Law  have  no  longer  any  force,  it  is  no  longer  foi 
him  a  driver  or  taskmaster,  but  a  good  friend  and  conipanion. 
He  is  no  longer  under  it,  inasmuch  as  he  now  does  good  and 
avoids  evil,  not  from  fear,  compulsion  and  necessity,  at  the  dic- 
tate of  the  Law,  but  out  of  free  love  and  with  a  cheerful  will,  just 
as  though  the  Law  were  not  in  existence  and  as  though  such 
conduct  were  perfectly  natural  to  him.  In  this  sense,  also,  are 
we  to  understand  i  Tim.  i.  g.*  But  it  is  specifically  the  believing 
and  regenerate  as  siieh  Avhom  Luther  here  has  in  view.  It  is  in 
perfect  keeping  with  the  position  here  taken,  that,  so  far  as  the 
weak  and  sinful  flesh  yet  manifests  its  presence  in  the  lives  of 
such,  they  too  must  yet  experience  the  compulsion  of  the  Law, 
and  may  even  be  compelled,  for  the  exercise  of  their  faith,  for  a 

>  Jena,  i,  555  b,  558  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  238  sq.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  157. 
^Cf.  supra,  p.  392  sqq. 

'Jena,  i,  555  b.      Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  44  sqq.,  288.      Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  144  sqq., 
265  sq. 

♦  Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  265  sqq.,  296. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  5OI 

season  to  realize  anew,  in  assaults  C'f  spiritual  temptation,  its  very- 
bitterest  terrors. 

We  must  yet,  finally,  endeavor  to  answer  the  question  already 
touched  upon,'  whether,  accordingly,  in  the  view  of  Luther,  the 
divine  will  in  general  is  no  longer  to  approach  the  believer,  in  so 
far  as  he  is  really  regenerate  and  spiritually-minded,  in  the  form 
of  objective  requirements  and  precepts,  or  in  the  form  of  obliga- 
tion (the  ^//^///).  We  might  look,  for  a  decision  of  the  question, 
to  his  conception  of  the  state  of  Adam  before  the  Fall.  It  was, 
we  know,  the  opinion  of  Luther  that  there  was  in  Adam  originally 
a  pure  spirit  of  free  obedience,  and  yet  there  was  imposed  upon 
him,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  an  objective  commandment 
with  respect  to  the  tree  of  knowledge.  Luther  was  actually 
confronted  with  the  question,  how  it  was  to  be  accounted  for,  if 
no  Law  is  now  any  longer  given  to  the  righteous  man,  that  one 
was  yet  imposed  upon  the  righteous  Adam.  He  replies  :  The 
Law  since  sin  has  entered  is  quite  a  diffeient  thing  from  the  Law 
before  the  appearance  of  sin.  It  is  the  latter  which  Paul  speaks 
of,  and  he  understands  it  in  the  sense  of  a  disciplinarian 
appointed  to  keep  men  from  sin.  Adam,  had  the  devil  not 
deceived  him,  would  have  kept  the  Law  given  to  him  willingly 
and  with  the  greatest  delight.  That  an  objective  commandment 
should  thus,  after  all,  be  given  to  Adam  does  not  at  all  disturb 
Luther.  He  regards  its  purpose  to  have  been  to  furnish  Adam 
an  opportunity  to  engage  in  outward  divine  worship  in  connection 
with  this  tree,  and  to  perform  an  outward  work  of  obedience 
toward  God.'^  But  Luther  does  not  further  pursue  the  question, 
whether  it  was  the  divine  plan  that  the  conduct  of  Adam  should, 
in  other  particulars  also,  be  regulated  and  his  willing  spirit  guided 
by  commandments  of  this  character.  In  regard  to  the  regene- 
rate, we  have  already  met  the  decided  assertions  of  Luther,  that 
they,  in  so  far  as  the  Spirit  alone  impels  them,  would  naturally — 
like  the  shining  sun  or  the  fruit-tree — of  themselves  conform  to 
the  will  of  God.'  But,  in  these  passages,  we  still  do  not  find  a 
specific  recognition  of  the  point  upon  which  the  question  before 
us  depends,  /.  e.,  the  idea  of  a  discrimination  which  might  here 

•  Vol.  I.,  p.  191  sq. 

2 Op.  Ex.,  i,  134  sqq.  ;  cf.  supra,  p.  343. 

''Tischr.,  ii,   152  (supra,  p.  488).     Erl.  Ed.,  vii,  267. 


502  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LU 1  HER. 

be  made — just  as  in  the  case  of  Adam — between  a  demand  in 
accordance  with  the  inward  incHnation  of  the  individual  and  the 
imperative  "  ought  "  of  a  taskmaster. 


Such,  then,  in  its  entire  scope,  is  the  Divine  Word  which  is  to 
lead  us  to  salvation.  But  how  far,  it  might  be  asked,  do  the 
power  and  function  of  this  Word  extend  when  it  is  accepted  in 
faith  as  a  Word  of  grace?  We  must,  according  to  Luther,  with 
all  possible  emphasis  reply  :  Already  in  the  Word  is  proffered, 
and  to  believers  granted,  the  full  and  complete  blessing  of  salva- 
tion, Christ  Himself,  with  the  life  which  is  in  Him.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  refer,  in  substantiation  of  this,  to  our  review  in  the 
preceding  chapter  of  the  doctrine  of  the  origination  of  faith  and 
to  the  passages  there  cited,  since  it  was  there  shown  what  faith 
already  possesses  when  it  draws  its  sustenance  from  the  Word 
and  holds  firmly  to  it.  Already  by  means  of  such  faith  Christ 
enters  into  us,  and  we,  according  to  John  vi.,  eat  His  flesh,  which 
thoroughly  deifies  i^durchgotterf)  us  and  delivers  us  from  the  devil 
and  from  death.  God  includes  Christ  in  the  Word  in  order  to 
distribute  Him  to  the  world ;  and  he  who  lays  hold  of  the  Word, 
lays  hold  of  Christ.  "  It  brings  and  gives  to  us  all  things  [Alies) 
— and  Christ  Himself."  ^ 


2.   The  Sacraments, 
a.  General  View. 

SIGNS    AND    SEALS    OF  THE    WORD A    GIFT POWER    FROM  THE  WORD 

DIVINE    APPOINTMENT NO    BENEFIT  WITHOUT    FAITH GOD    NOT 

BOUND SIGNS    BY    WHICH    THE    CHURCH    MAY    BE    RECOGNIZED 

SUPREMACY    OF    WORD. 

In  a  passage  already  cited  Luther  calls  baptism,  the  Eucharist 
and  the  spoken  Word  visible  forms  {formas  visibiks').  Such,  in 
the  stricter  sense,  are  really  but  the  two  first  mentioned.  In 
them  visible,  really  tangible  objects  are  still  presented  to  us  along 
with  the  Word  as  sig77s,  in  connection  with  which  we  are  to  find 

'  Supra,  p.  426  sqq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  390  sq.  ;  xi,  I40  ;  xii,  216;  cf.  supra, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  191,  and  still  further,  Vol.  II.,  p.  123. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  503 

and  lay  hold  upon  God  and  Christ.  They  are  such  signs  for  us, 
however,  simply  because  God  Himself  gives  in  connection  with 
them  His  Word,  that  is,  His  commandment  and  promise,  by  which 
we  are  authorized  to  employ  them.  They  are  thus  external,  tangible 
signs,  or  created  objects,  through  which  God  deals  visibly  with  us, 
in  order  that  we  may  be  sure  of  His  presence.  God  had  already 
under  the  old  covenant,  and  even  in  Paradise,  attached  such 
signs  and  seals  to  His  Word,  and  He  has  now  given  us  under  the 
new  covenant  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.'  Luther  highly 
extols  the  inestimable  value  of  these,  not  only  in  opposition  to 
those  who  in  their  pride  of  heart  despise  these  apparently  weak 
sensuous  things,  of  which  we  poor  men  yet  so  sorely  stand  in 
need,  but,  more  particularly,  as  a  means  of  strengthening  believers 
in  their  hours  of  spiritual  temptation.''  In  defining  them,  he 
adopts  the  formula  of  Augustine  :  "  that  a  sacrament  is  a  visible 
form  {forma)  of  invisible  grace."  He  approves  also,  when 
properly  anderstood,  che  other  Augustinian  maxim  :  "  the  Word 
is  added  {accedit :  comes)  to  die  element,  and  it  becomes  a 
sacrament."  '^ 

But  the  principal  thing  is  here,  not  in  any  sense  a  work  done 
by  us,  but  a  treasure  which  God  gives  to  us  and  which  faith 
grasps.*  And  the  signs  of  which  we  speak  are  not  such  as 
merely  represent  the  treasure,  but  such  as,  l>y  virtue  of  the  accom- 
panying Word,  themselves  bring  this  treasure  with  them.  God, 
together  with  His  Word,  "  puts  this  visible  thing  before  us,  in 
which  we  might  be  able  to  grasp  the  treasure  spoken  of." 
Through  the  signs  the  Holy  Spirit  works.  By  virtue  of  the 
Word,  the  signs  themselves  become  effective  {kraftig).  The 
insistence  u])on  the  mediation  of  divine  saving  energy  through 
these  signs  themselves,  and  upon  the  very  profound  union  of  the 
divine  power  with  them  as  effected  by  the  Word,  is  character- 
istic of  Luther's  teaching  after  his  conflict  with  the  "  fanatical 
spirits."  Faith  does  not,  according  to  the  uniform  representa- 
tions of  the  Reformer  after  this  period,  look  to  the  Word  essen- 
tially belonging  to  the  sacrament  in  such  a  way  as  to  receive 

1  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  83  sqq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  48;  Vol.  I.,  p.  403  sq. ;  Vol.  II.,  pp. 
343.  361. 

*  Supra,  pp.  296  sqq.,  459. 

*  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  83.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,    131,  143. 
*Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  134  sqq. 


504  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

salvation  directly  from  this  Word  as  such,  and  as  then  to  have 
the  signs,  in  addition,  only  for  the  still  further  confirmation  of 
faith ;  but  it  is  precisely  through  and  in  these  signs  that  the 
blessings  of  salvation  are  extended  to  the  believer,  although  the 
signs  themselves  are,  it  is  true,  qualified  to  serve  this  purpose  only 
through  the  Word,  and  are,  as  such,  exhibited  to  faith  through 
the  W^ord.  The  earthly  elements  are,  as  he  was  accustomed  to 
express  it,  embraced  in  the  Word  {ins  Wort gefasst) ,  or  appre- 
hended through  the  Word  {^crcaturae  apprehensae  per  verbtwi)  ; 
and  hence  they  themselves  now  do  that  which  the  Word  promises. 
They  are  now  powerful  (effective)  divine  things.' 

Hence,  it  follows,  the  sacraments  retain  their  power  and  signifi- 
cance, which  rest  upon  the  divine  Word  given  at  their  institution, 
without  any  regard  to  the  personal  character  of  their  human 
administrator ;  and  it  is  not  the  latter,  but  God  Himself,  who 
accomplishes  the  result  achieved  wherever  they  are  celebrated  in 
accordance  with  the  divine  appointment.'^  Neither  is  it  through 
the  faith  of  the  recipient  that  they  gain  their  power  and  efficacy, 
which  attaches  to  them  simply  by  virtue  of  the  Word.  It  is  not 
through  faith  that  the  sacrament  becomes  a  sacrament.  We  dare 
not  confound  the  question  as  to  what  the  sacrament  is  in  itself 
and  can  effect  with  the  entirely  different  question,  in  what  way 
the  appropriation  of  its  benefits  (treasure)  by  the  participant  is 
to  be  accomphshed.  Neither  is  it  his  own  faith  upon  which  the 
recipient  is  to  depend  in  order,  in  the  reception  of  the  sacra- 
ment, to  be  sure  of  his  salvation,  but  he  is  to  rely  upon  the  will 
and  the  Word  of  that  God  who  has  instituted  the  sacrament  for 
him.  This  latter  position  Luther  had  occasion  to  maintain 
particularly  in  regard  to  baptism.^ 

It  is  to  be  further  observed,  however,  that  Luther  did  not 
recognize  the  mere  utterance  of  a  divine  Word,  or  of  the  sacred 
name  of  God,  above  the  elements  as  sufficient  to  make  of  them 
such  a  sacrament.  The  maxim  :  "Accedit  verhinn,'"  etc.,  is  not 
to  be  so  interpreted.  Otherwise,  anything  might  be  made  a 
sacrament,  just  as  men  might  fancy.  A  precise  divine  precept, 
or  divine  appointment,  is  essential.     In  exact  accordance  with 

'Erl,  Ed.,  iv,  71  ;  xvi,  48;  xxi,  133;  xix,  80.  Op.  Ex.,  i,  290.  ErI.  Ed., 
viii,  94. 

'Supra,  p.  56.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  144;  xix,  87.     Briefe,  v,  146. 
^Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  53,  92  sqq.  ;  supra,  p.  55. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  505 

such  divine  appointment,  moreover,  and  in  rightful  use,  must  the 
sacraments  be  administered.  Hence,  what  has  been  said  of  the 
union  of  the  divine  with  the  earthly  is  applicable  only  during 
the  performance  of  the  very  acts  which  have  been  authorized  at 
the  institution  of  the  sacrament.  It  is  therefore  rightly  held 
"  that  sacraments  are  actions,  not  permanent  creations  {staiites 
factionesy  ;  and  Melanchthon  properly  maintains  "  that  there  is 
no  sacrament  outside  of  the  sacramental  action,"  from  which  it 
follows  that  the  host  is  not  to  be  enclosed  in  a  casket  and  carried 
about.' 

Although  faith  does  not  make  the  sacrament  nor  give  to  it  its 
efficacy,  it  must  yet  just  as  decidedly  be  maintained  that  the 
sacrament  cannot  benefit,  or  exert  its  power  for  us,  unless  we 
receive  it  in  faith.  Thus  Luther  always  teaches,  although  he 
could  now,  indeed,  no  longer  have  said,  as  in  his  De  captivitate 
Babylonica  :  "  Baptism  profits  no  one,  but  faith  in  the  Word  of 
promise,"  etc,'^  Thus,  he  declares  that  the  celebration  of  the 
sacrament,  in  which,  indeed,  even  without  our  faith  the  body  of 
Christ  is  partaken  of,  is  without  our  faith  profitless,  and  even 
injurious,  to  us.  Hence,  also,  he  regards  the  faith  of  infants  as 
necessary,  in  order  that  infant  baptism  may  be  efficacious.  Thus 
too,  while  contending  on  the  one  hand  against  the  Anabaptists, 
he  yet,  at  the  same  time,  maintains,  as  against  the  Romish  con- 
ception of  the  sacrament,  his  former  Augustinian  maxim  :  "  It  is 
not  the  sacrament  that  justifies,  but  the  faith  of  the  sacrament." 
He  at  Marburg,  in  1529,  sanctions  the  framing  of  the  article 
upon  baptism  in  such  a  way  as  to  assert  that  it  is  "  a  divine  work, 
in  which  is  required  our  faith,  through  which  we  are  regenerated." 
Although  he  was  then  bearing  testimony  against  Zwingli,  not 
concerning  faith,  but  concerning  the  sacrament  as  such,  he  yet 
even  then  was  careful  to  designate  faith,  or  the  "  right  use  of 
the  sacrament  ",  as  the  best  part  {^das  Bcstc).  And  toward  the 
close  of  his  life  he  declared  :  "  Whether  it  be  the  sacrament  of 
the  altar,  or  whether  it  be  baptism,  or  whether  it  be  the  Word  in 
the  public  assembly,  thou  truly  hast  just  so  much  as  thou  believ- 
est."  ^     But,  on  the  other  hand,  he  always  taught  that  faith  itself, 

^  Erl.  Ed.,xvi,  56,  59;  Ixv,  215  sq.     Briefe,  v,  573,  577  sq-        '■'Jena,  ii,  286  b. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  133;  xii,  179,  213  sq.  Supra,  p.  123;  Vol.  L,  pp.  246,  265, 
396  sq.  ;  Vol.  II.,  p.  48.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  60;  Ixv,  90.  Vol.  II.,  p.  109  sq. 
Op.  Ex.,  xi,  137  (cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  259). 


5o6  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

which  easily  grows  weak,  must  be  constantly  excited  afresh  and 
nourished  by  means  of  the  sacraments — by  the  reception  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  and  by  the  devout  remembrance  of  one's  baptism.' 

God  has,  moreover,  as  we  shall  find  him  asserting  particularly 
with  reference  to  baptism,  not  bound  Himself  to  the  sacraments, 
but  can  also  save  without  them.  He  thus  declares,  especially 
for  the  purpose  of  quieting  the  consciences  of  those  who  may 
have  been  excluded  from  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  or 
even  from  baptism  (and,  at  a  still  later  date,  frequently  repeats 
the  assertion),  that,  for  such,  faith  is  sufficient  and  fully  compen- 
sates for  the  lack  of  bodily  participation.' 

Although  the  sacraments  are  thus,  essentially  and  primarily,  a 
work  of  God  for  us  and  upon  us,  we  are  yet  always  to  conceive 
of  them  as  also  signs,  by  which  the  Christian  Cluirch  is  to  be 
recognized,  and  as  acts  in  which  it  is  itself  to  confess  and  praise, 
and  that  publicly,  its  God  and  Saviour.  This  finds  illustration,  in 
regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  passages  already  cited,  but  more 
particularly  in  what  remains  to  be  considered  under  the  topic  of 
private  communion.  A  child  to  whom  baptism  has  been  privately 
administered  in  case  of  necessity  is  to  be  afterwards  presented 
{vorgetragen)  in  the  Church,  "because  baptism  ought  to  be  a 
sacrament,  that  is,  a  public  sign  of  confession."  ^ 

In  connection  with  all  these  and  similar  utterances  of  Luther 
in  regard  to  the  sacraments,  the  Word  retains  the  first  place,  as 
"  the  most  necessary  and  the  highest  part  in  Christianity  (the 
Christian  Church)."  For,  says  he,  the  latter  could  not  exist 
without  the  Word,  which  alone  gives  it  its  power  and  which  must 
make  known  to  men  its  importance  and  significance,  whereas  the 
Word  can  exist  without  the  Church,  and  it  is  possible,  in  case  of 
emergency,  to  be  saved  without  any  sacrament,  but  not  without 
the  Word.* 

'  Losclier,  ii,  5S1.  Jena,  ii,  285  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiv,  326  sq.  ;  xii,  179;  ii, 
207  ;   Ixv,  91.  ;   xxiii,  193. 

2  Vol.  I.,  pp.  350,  395,424.  Vol.  II.,  p.  128.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiv,  207;  xii, 
179;  xxxi,  369.     Briefe,  v,  547,  39  (cf.  Jena,  ii,  577  b). 

»Erl.  Ed.,  X,  303  sq.;  xi,  182  sq.;  xii,  212.  Briefe,  v,  146.  Supra,  pp.  82, 
114. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  131 ;   xii,  215  sq.  ;  xlvii,  207  sq.;  xxxi,  351.     Briefe,  v,  547. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  507 

b.  Baptism. 

DOES    NO'l'    EFFACE    ORIGINAL    SIN FORGIVENESS    ENDURING SIGNIFI- 
CANCE   OF    SIGN    AND    PROMISE FIRST    EFFECT    IS    FORGIVENESS 

NEW     LIFE     IMPLANTED DIPPING     BENEATH     WATER EFFICACIOUS 

THROUGH    WORD — PERPETUAL    OBLIGATION INFANT    BAPTISM. 

It  was  the  special  task  of  Luther,  in  combating  the  theory  of 
baptism  embodied  in  the  prevalent  theology  of  the  day,  to  estab- 
Ush  and  defend  the  two  propositions  :  that  original  sin  still  clings 
as  real  sin  to  the  baptized,  and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  for- 
giveness imparted  in  baptism  retains  perpetual  efficacy,  and 
consequently  repentance  for  sins  subsequently  committed  must 
consist  in  nothing  else  but  a  return  to  this  forgiveness.  In  view 
of  this  comprehensive  and  perpetual  significance  of  baptism,  the 
vow  then  assumed  was  to  be  regarded  as  taking  precedence  of  all 
others  by  means  of  which  a  Christian  might  afterwards  seek  to 
work  out  his  salvation.  And  the  entire  comprehensive  liberty  of 
the  believer,  his  spiritual  character,  his  priestly  rank,  etc.,  were 
traced  back  by  Luther  to  his  baptism  as  their  source.'  It  was 
in  the  defence,  especially,  of  infant  baptism  that  he  contended 
against  the  "  fanatical  spirits."  In  the  conflict  with  the  latter, 
the  entire  objective  character  of  baptism  and  the  sacraments  in 
general  was  clearly  presented  and  maintained. 

In  explaining  the  nature  of  baptism,  Luther  had  at  first  taken 
as  his  sfaj-fi/ig  point  the  significance  of  the  visible  sign,  or  the 
dipping  of  the  body  beneath  the  water.  He  afterwards  selected, 
as  the  unvarying  initial  point  in  all  discussions  of  baptism  (as  in 
the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper),  the  words  of  promise,  /.  e.,  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,"  and,  accordingly, 
makes  the  special  significance  of  baptism  to  consist  in  this : 
"  That  we  through  it  are  to  be  saved,  that  is,  to  be  delivered  from 
sin,  death  and  hell  and  from  all  evil,  and  to  be  righteous,  holy, 
alive,  and  heirs  of  heaven."  It  is  for  him,  in  the  language  of 
Paul,  a  "  washing  of  regeneration,"  just  because  we  are  through 
it  born  to  the  new  spiritual  life,  in  which  we  become  righteous 
before  God  and  heirs  of  heaven.^ 

^  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  326,  356  sq.,  395.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  88  sqq. ;  supra,  Vol.  I., 
pp.  359  sq.,  372  sq.,  398. 

'^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  356,  395  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  87,  66  sqq.;  xxi,  17;  xix,  Si  ;  cf. 
supra,  p.  454. 


5o8  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

In  this  attainment  of  salvation,  the  first  and  fundamentally 
essential  thing — in  accordance  with  Luther's  whole  conception 
of  the  plan  of  redemption — is  again  iht  forgiveness  of  sins,  secured 
through  the  blood  of  Christ ;  and,  in  order  that  we  may  experi- 
ence this  justifying  grace  of  God  through  faith,  the  Holy  Spirit 
desires— in  immediate  connection  with  our  baptism — to  enlighten 
and  inflame  us  with  His  fire.  Through  this  forgiveness  we 
become  perfectly  pure  in  the  sight  of  God,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  sins  yet  cling  to  us  and  must  be  still  further  driven  out 
of  us.  To  our  baptism,  in  which  forgiveness  is  granted  us  for  all 
sins,  we  must,  whenever  we  fall,  creep  back  again.' 

But  we  are,  in  our  baptism,  also  cleansed  from  sin  in  the  sense, 
that  it  is  inwardly  overcome  and  put  away  from  us.  In  that  we 
are,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Paul  in  Rom.  vi.,  baptized 
into  the  death  of  Christ,  our  flesh  and  blood  are  condemned  and 
given  over  to  death,  to  be  entirely  drowned,  in  order  that  our 
life  on  earth  may  thereafter  be  a  constant  dying  to  sin.  And  in 
that  we  are  planted  together  with  Christ  into  a  similar  death,  this 
our  death  becomes  an  implanting  of  life.  This  implantation  of  life 
begins  in  baptism,  and  we  must  then  make  it  manifest  that  such 
life  abides  in  us  and  does  not  remain  fruitless.  Just  in  baptism 
do  we  receive  the  grace  which  cannot  thereafter  stand  idle,  but 
which  continually  contends  against  evil  lust,  arouses  within  us 
good  desires,  and  prompts  us  to  good  works.'' 

The  dipping  iinder  the  water  Luther  still,  as  at  first,  considers 
as  a  picture,  or  symbol,  of  this  progressive  drowning  of  the  old 
Adam  in  contrition  and  repentance ;  but  he  generally  under- 
stands the  cleansing  thus  signified  very  comprehensively,  as 
embracing  the  whole  fundamental  work  of  deliverance,  in  which 
connection  he  then  designates  the  washing  of  baptism  as,  first  of 
all,  a  washing  "  through  forgiveness  of  sins."  ^ 

The  part  to  be  ascribed  to  the  water  in  baptism  we  have 
already  seen,  when  reviewing  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  in 
general.  Baptism,  says  Luther,  is  entirely  embedded  {eingeleibi) 
in  the  name  and  Word  of  God,  and  permeated  by  them,  so  that 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  II2  sq.,  II9  sqq.,  74;  xix,  83  sq.  ;  xxi,  135  ;  Vol.  I.,  p.  395. 
2  Vol.  I.,  pp.  326,397;  Vol.  II.,  p.  462  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  146-152;  xvi, 
104,  1 19  ;  XV,  49. 

^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  356,  400.  Erl.  Ed,,  xxi,  17  ;  xxx,  270  sq.;  ix,  146. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  509 

it  has  become  quite  a  different  thing  from  common  water.  He 
employs  here  again,  as  in  setting  forth  the  imion  of  the  bread 
with  the  body  of  Christ,  the  illustration  of  the  iron  thoroughly 
permeated  by  fire,  and  also  the  further  figure  of  "  water  satur- 
ated with  herbs  or  sugar."  This  baptism  has  a  purely  spiritual 
significance,  and  brings  spiritual  blessing.  Yea,  God  Himself, 
as  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  is  present  in  it,  as  at  the 
baptism  of  Jesus.  The  blood  of  Christ  is  even  mingled  with 
it,  as  water  and  blood  once  flowed  from  the  pierced  side  of 
Jesus  (cf.  John  xix.  34  sq.  and  i  John  v.  6).'  Referring  to  the 
fact,  that  the  body  is  also  involved  in  the  act  of  administering 
baptism — that  it  is  sprinkled  with  water  while  the  Word  is  being 
spoken  for  the  soul — Luther,  in  one  passage,  infers  that  "  since 
water  and  Word  are  one  baptism,  so  also  both  body  and  soul  are 
saved."  "  But  he  constantly  reiterates,  in  opposition  to  the 
scholastic  theologians,  the  assertion,  that  it  is  only  by  virtue  of  the 
lVo7-d  that  the  water  is  efficacious.  Nothing  but  the  Word,  or  the 
promise,  dare  be  spoken  of  as  the  power  given  to  the  water.  He 
even  at  times  designates  the  Word  alone  as  that  by  which  we  are 
saved.  In  the  passage  in  which  he  refers  to  the  participation  of 
the  body  in  this  sacrament,  he  says  :  "  The  soul  is  saved  through 
the  Word,  in  which  it  believes ;  but  the  body,  because  it  is  united 
with  the  soul,  and  also  accepts  {ergreifet)  the  baptism  as  well  as 
it  can."  ^ 

In  insisting  upon  the  point,  that  the  efificacy  (A';v?//)  of  the 
sacraments  is  involved  already  in  and  with  the  Word  in  order 
that  it  may  thus  be  accessible  to  faith,  and  in  opposition  to  the 
idea  that  it  is  imparted  to  them  by  the  act  of  the  person  admin- 
istering them,  Luther  goes  so  far  as  to  hold— as  did  also  the 
Papists — that  even  a  baptism  administered  in  play  and  for  mere 
sport  was  to  be  considered  a  proper  and  valid  baptism.  In  sup- 
port of  this  position,  he  cites  the  instance  of  a  baptism  admin- 
istered by  Athanasius  at  one  time  in  childish  sport,  which  Bishop 
Alexander  afterwards  acknowledged  as  valid,  and  also  that  which, 
according  to  an  old  legend,  some  impious  jester  administered  in 
ridicule  of  Christianity  to  a  certain  person,  to  whom,  however, 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  64.  Op.  Ex,  xix,  237.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  73,  1 18 ;  xlv,  1 14  sqq.  ; 
xix,  83  ;  cf.  xvi,  74. 

'^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  135.  ^  Op.  Ex.,  i,  290.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  133,  135. 


5lO  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

there  was  revealed,  in  the  very  act  of  his  baptism,  a  divine 
inscription  of  the  words  of  Eph.  iv.  5  sqq.,  and  who  was  thereby 
led  to  faith.'  We  have  already  remarked  that  we  are  unable  to 
reconcile  with  the  position  here  taken  some  other  utterances  of 
Luther,  particularly  those  in  which  he  holds  that  at  celebrations 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  conducted  by  Sacramentarians  even  believing 
guests  receive  only  bread  and  wine.' 

From  the  contemplation  of  the  blessing  which  baptism  brings 
with  it  by  virtue  of  the  accompanying  Word,  our  attention  is 
directed,  finally,  as  already,  indeed,  indicated  in  the  above  cita- 
tions, to  the  perpetual  obligation  which  it  involves  upon  the  part 
of  the  recipient.  It  is  the  duty,  as  well  as  the  privilege,  of  the 
Christian  to  constantly  recur  to  his  baptism  and  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  which  it  involved ;  and  he  will  always  have  enough  still  to 
learn  and  to  do  in  order  that  he  may  firmly  believe  all  that  it 
promises  and  brings  to  him.  He  is,  further,  under  special  obli- 
gation to  persevere  in  the  conflict  which  began  at  his  baptism, 
and  to  manifest  in  his  life  the  fruits  which  it  should  properly 
produce.  He  is  thus  by  his  daily  walk  to  beautify  and  adorn 
the  exalted  treasure  which  he  has  received.'' 

The  queston,  whether,  or  in  how  far,  the  above  specifications 
are  to  be  actually  exemplified  in  infant  baptism,  has  been  already 
discussed  at  length.*  We  may  now  call  particular  attention  to 
the  manner  in  which  Luther,  as  then  noted,  advanced  to  the 
position,  that  the  effectual  divine  power  is  to  be  located  entirely 
in  the  baptism  itself.  This  power  lies  in  the  baptism  by  virtue 
of  the  Word,  although  it  can,  indeed,  even  in  the  case  of  children, 
become  efficacious  only  by  means  of  faith.  And,  just  as  it  has, 
in  other  connections,  been  held  that  faith  is  awakened  directly 
through  the  sacraments  and  the  \\'ord  of  promise  contained  in 
them,  so  it  is  now  said  to  be  effected  in  children  through  the 
very  act  of  baptism  itself  and  through  the  Word  there  announced. 
Christians  are  said  to  present  their  children  with  the  believing 
prayer  that  the  Lord  may  grant  them  faith ;  but  then  the  admin- 

'  Loscher,   ii,  201    (in  the  Resol.  disput.,   etc.  :  cf.    Vol.   I.,  pp.  262,  265). 
Jena,  ii,  286.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  356;   xliv,  113  sqq. 
^  Supra,  pp.  129,  157  sq.,  161. 

^  Vol.  I.,  p.  138.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  135  ;   xvi,  104  sq. 
*  Supra,  p.  45  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  51I 

istrant,  whose  words  and  deeds  are  the  words  and  deeds  of  Christ, 
and  from  whose  hps  they  now  hear  the  Gospel,  gives  them  faith.' 
In  the  case  of  those  children  who,  by  no  fault  of  theirs,  are  over- 
taken by  death  while  yet  unbaptized,  Luther  trusts  to  prayer 
addressed  to  the  mercy  of  God,  even  without  baptism.  He  does, 
indeed,  in  one  passage  of  his  earlier  writings,  inquire,  as  though 
there  were  no  hope  for  the  unbaptized  children  even  oi  Christian 
parents:  "What  prevents  (in  view  of  original  sin)  children 
unbaptized  from  being  condemned  to  all  eternity?''  -  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  declares  in  the  House  Postih,  that  those  children 
for  whom  parents,  etc.,  earnestly  pray,  and  whom  they  offer  up 
to  God,  are  beyond  doubt  graciously  accepted  by  Him.  He 
advises  afterwards  that  death  under  such  circumstances  be  repre- 
sented to  the  wicked  as  a  sign  of  the  divine  wrath  ;  and  then 
further  counsels  us  not  to  attempt  to  pry  into  such  matters  as 
God  has  not  revealed  to  us.  Nevertheless,  he  would  have  us 
represent  to  the  pious  and  believing  for  their  consolation,  that 
God  has  not  bound  Himself  to  the  sacraments ;  that  it  is  a  great 
matter  that  such  children,  although  defiled  by  inborn  sin,  have 
not  yet  actually  transgressed  the  Law ;  that  it  is  the  nature  of 
God  to  pardon  and  have  compassion.  For  such  children  we 
should  therefore  hope  and  believe — and  not  doubt.^ 

c.  The  Lord's  Supper. 

THE  GIFT  IMPARTED THE  CRUCIFIED  AND  GLORIFIED  BODY SACRA- 
MENTAL UNION  vs.  TRANSUBSTANTIATION — WORD  OF  CHRIST  AND 
SPECIFIC  APPOINTMENT — ADORATION  OF  SACRAMENT — SACRAMENTAL 

UNION    ONLY    DURING    CELEBRATION — BENEFITS    FOR    THE    BODY 

SEAL  AND  PLEDGE  OF  PROMISE — FORGIVENESS  OF  SINS ADHERENCE 

TO    WORDS    OF    INSTITUTION MEMORIAL THANK-OFFERING FEL- 
LOWSHIP  WITH    CHRIST  AND    FELLOW -BELIEVERS. 

Through  baptism,  says  Luther,  we  are,  in  the  first  instance, 
born  anew ;  the  Lord's  Supper  is  then  a  food  for  souls  which 
nourishes  and  strengthens  the  new  man.^ 

IVol.  II.,  pp.  45  sq.,  49,  51. 

'Jena,  ii,  433  (A.  D.  1521).  Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  166  (A.  D.  1534).  Briefe,  iv, 
672 'q.  (A.  D.,  1536.)  Op.  Ex.,  iv,  78,  121  sq  ,  129  289.  Briefe,  vi,  337 
sqq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xvj.j.  340  sqq.  (A.  D.  1542). 

*Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  145. 


512  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

His  doctrine  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper  has  been  already — 
more  fully  even  than  that  concerning  baptism — explained  in  its 
particular  details  in  the  earlier  portion  of  this  work,  especially  in 
our  Third  Book. 

From  the  very  first  discussion  of  the  subject,  we  recognized  in 
the  view  of  Luther,  as  we  shall  now  again  in  our  final  review 
have  occasion  to  note,  above  all  else  the  most  decided  opposition 
to  every  theory  which  would  substitute  for  the  divinely  imparted 
gift  in  this  sacrament,  which  the  communicant  is  to  receive  in 
simple  faith,  any  human  work,  whether  it  be  the  sacrificial  act  of 
the  officiating  priest,  or  the  meritorious  deed  or  deeds  of  the 
communicants,  or  their  devout  religious  ardor  and  self-mortifica- 
tion. He  rejects  even  that  explanation  of  some  of  his  papal 
antagonists  which  represented  it  as  a  thank-offering ;  for  even 
thus  we  would  still  make  of  it  a  work  and  merit  of  our  own,  and 
thus  the  grace  of  God  toward  us  would  not  be  magnified,  but  our 
work  toward  God.' 

As  the  actual  blessing,  or  gift,  to  be  i-eceivcd  in  the  sacrament, 
we  have  heard  him  designate,  in  the  first  instance,  the  fellowship 
of  Christ  and  His  saints,  which  is  signijied  by  the  sacrament, 
regarding  as  the  thing  signifying,  or  the  sign,  not  by  any  means 
the  bare  bread  and  wine,  but,  as  well,  the  body  itself  given  with 
the  elements.  We  were  then  led  to  recognize  the  more  advanced 
and  permanent  form  of  his  doctrine  in  his  designation  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  in  accordance  with  the  words  of  institution, 
as  the  treasure  which  is  bestowed  upon  us  in  the  impartation  of 
the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ.'^  But  the  presence  of  this 
true  objective  body  itself  had  not  been  in  the  beginning  specific- 
ally maintained  nor  thoroughly  discussed  by  Luther,^  although  he 
never  denied  it — not  even  in  his  decided  and  open  opposition  to 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  as  based  upon  poor  philosophy. 
It  was  only  the  contest  with  the  Sacramentarians  that  led  him  to 
a  careful  examination  of  this  phase  of  the  doctrine.  The  pressing 
question  now  arose  :  What  is  the  peculiar  inner  value  of  the  body 
itself?  Is  any  blessing,  and  if  so,  of  what  kind,  bestowed  in  the 
body  itself? 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  341  sq.,  348,  352,  392,  394,  458.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  185  sq. 
2  Vol.  I.,  pp.  358  sq.,  347. 
^  Supra,  p.  109. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  513 

If  we  now  once  more  call  to  mind  briefly  the  theory  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  particularly  with  respect  to  the  body  therein 
dispensed,  as  we  find  this  theory  exhibited  in  the  polemical 
writings  of  Luther,  and  in  his  later  practical  works  as  well,  we 
will  find  present  in  the  sacrament,  according  to  it,  that  body  of 
Christ  which  tvas  once  crucified  for  our  sins,  which  is  now  exalted 
to  heav€7i  and  glorified,  and  which  is,  moreover,  according  to  its 
entire  original  nature,  of  a  spiritual  and  divine  kind.'  In  oppo- 
sition to  the  antagonists  who  denied  the  possibility  of  an  existence 
of  the  body  in  heaven  and  at  the  same  time  in  the  sacrament, 
Luther  spoke  of  the  different  kinds  of  presence,  and  even  of  the 
omnipresence,  of  His  body  as  involved  in  the  personality  of 
Christ.  But  we  must  again  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Luther 
regards  the  "  definitive "  presence  as  furnishing  a  sufificient 
explanation  of  the  existence  of  the  body  in  the  sacrament.  Not 
only  in  his  practical  and  popular,  but  as  well  in  his  later  polem- 
ical writings,  he  no  longer  appealed  to  the  "  repletive,"  omni- 
present existence  of  the  body.^  And,  still  further,  the  real  basis 
for  our  faith  in  the  presence  of  the  body  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  not  to  be  in  any  case  our  theory  as  to  the  various  kinds  of 
presence,  but,  on  the  contrary,  simply  the  Word  of  the  Lord  and 
the  omnipotence  of  God,  who  is  able  to  do  what  he  says.'  He 
bases  the  doctrine  simply  upon  this  Word,  particularly  in  all  his 
sermons  and  in  the  catechisms. 

There  was,  therefore,  no  need  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion  in  order  to  make  possible  an  acknowledgment  of  the  pres- 
ence of  the  body  and  blood  in  the  elements  as  required  by  the 
language  of  Christ.  Of  this  doctrine  Luther  always  speaks  with 
the  greatest  contempt  as  an  empty  and  sophistical  human  inven- 
tion, although  he  does  not  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  great  concern 
that  some  should  yet  cling  to  it.  Even  Aristotle,  to  whom  its 
advocates  appealed,  would,  he  says,  have  laughed  at  the  coarse 
donkeys.*  He  himself  regards  the  union  of  the  body  and  the 
elements  as  one  of  a  unique — specifically  "  ^-<?^ra/«^;/ A?/  kifid," 
differing  also  from  that  existing  between  the  two  natures  of 
Christ,  with  which  he  sometimes  compares   it — most    fittingly, 

>  Supra,  p.  125.  2  Supra,  pp    142,  189.  ^gyprg^  p    jgg 

♦Vol.  I.,  pp.  381,  389  sqq.,  462.  Briefe,  v.  362,  568  ;  vi,  284  sq.  Erl.  Ed., 
XXV,  137  ;  xxxi,  402. 

33 


5  14  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

perhaps,  illustrated  in  the  identity  of  the  dove  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  That  even  the  figure  of  the  glowing  iron  ''  does  not  suffice 
to  express  the  characteristic  nature  of  this  union,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  he  employs  it  also  to  illustrate  the  union  of  the 
Word  with  the  water  of  baptism.  That  Christ  says  of  the  bread  : 
"  This  is  my  body,"  is  explained  by  the  rhetorical  figure,  synec- 
doche.^ We  can  thus  speak  even  of  a  "  tearing  "  of  the  body  with 
the  teeth,  although  the  body  cannot,  of  course,  be  itself  masti- 
cated or  bitten  into  pieces.*  It  was  possible,  indeed,  even  with 
the  recognition  of  a  synecdoche,  to  still  avoid  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  a  proper  bodily  reception,  as  was  actually  the  case  with 
the  theologians  of  Upper  Germany.  It  may,  therefore,  not 
have  been  without  reason  that  it  was  said  that  the  latter  at 
length  also  failed  to  satisfy  Luther.^ 

Luther's  response  to  the  question,  what  it  is  that  "  brings  into 
the  bread  "  the  body  of  Christ,  corresponds  perfectly  with  what 
has  been  observed  in  respect  to  the  sacraments  in  general.  The 
Word  of  God,  uttered  at  the  consecration  of  the  elements,  has 
this  power.  It  has  such  power,  however,  only  by  virtue  of  the 
command  and  appointment  of  Christ:  "Do  this,"  etc.  This 
binds  the  other  two  things,  /.  e.,  the  Word  and  the  elements, 
together.  It  is,  then,  Christ  Himself  who  there  works  and  dis- 
penses. We  hear  the  words  as  though  they  fell  from  His  own 
lips.®  Hence  the  sacrament  is  valid  even  though  the  administrant 
be  an  evil  person  or  one  not  regularly  authorized.^  But  we  must 
here  bear  in  mind,  on  the  other  hand,  the  positions  held  by 
Luther,  that  the  sacrament  has  validity  only  in  the  Church 
accepting  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  that  the  body  of  Christ  is 
present  neither  in  the  celebrations  of  the  Supper  by  the  Sacra- 

'  Vol.  I.,  p.  391  sq. ;  Vol.  II.,  pp.  80  sq.,  146.  The  term  "dynamic 
union,"  at  least  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  would  here  be  liable  to 
misinterpretation,  since  Luther  means  to  express  an  entrance  of  the  body, 
not  only  in  its  power,  but  in  its  substance.     Cf.  Vol.  II.,  p.  169. 

2Vol.  I.,  p.  390;  Vol.  II.,  p.  80. 

3  Vol.  II.,  pp.  80  sqq.,  146. 

*  Supra,  pp.  146,  163.     Erl.  Ed,,  xxx,  130. 
•^  Supra,  p.  188. 

*  Supra,  pp.  67,  74,  81  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xvi,  59;  xxxi,  361  sq.  Briefe,  iv, 
652. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  362. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  515 

mentarians  nor  in  the  popish  hedge-masses.^  Even  in  the  public 
communion  of  the  Papists,  Luther  refuses  to  recognize  the  pres- 
ence of  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  wine,  since  the  latter  is,  in 
defiance  of  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  withheld  from  the  laity.^ 

As  Luther  now,  in  his  simple  holding  to  the  words,  "  This  is 
my  body,"  ever  strenuously  maintained  the  real  presence  of  the 
body,  so  he  refused  to  near  of  anything  more  than  this.  That, 
with  the  body,  the  soul  of  Christ  and  the  entire  Godhead  must 
also  be  present,  he  regarded  as  merely  a  vain  human  inference.^ 
This  distinction  was  of  special  importance  in  the  defining  of  his 
view  as  to  the  participation  of  the  ungodly,  for  whom  he  held 
that  Christ  "  has  nothing  more  than  a  body  "  *  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  since  they  do  not  at  the  same  time  receive  Him  also  in 
faith.  We  should  understand  in  the  sacrament,  he  says  in  one 
passage,^  not  the  entire  Christ,  or  His  kingdom,  but  His  body 
"  as  a  part  of  His  kingdom  and  of  the  entire  Christ."  Nor  does 
he  allow  himself  to  be  disturbed  in  this  position  by  the  fact  that 
he  also  described  the  flesh  of  Christ  as  itself  full  of  the  Spirit  and 
of  divinity.'  He  thus  always  rejects  all  suggestions  of  "  con- 
comitance," because  no  one  has  commanded  us  to  put  more  into 
the  sacrament  than  the  clear  words  of  Christ  give  us.'  He 
even  declines  to  approve  the  view,  that  the  blood  is  also  at  least 
implied  in  the  bread,  and  the  flesh  in  the  wine.*  On  the  con- 
trary, appealing  to  i  Cor.  x.  i6,  he  regards  the  communion  of 
the  body  and  that  of  the  blood  as  distinct  in  the  bodily  form, 
although  in  spiritual  communion  (of  which  the  Fanatics  have  so 
much  to  say)  body  and  blood  cannot  be  separated.®  He  repels 
with  scorn  the  notion  of  the  Papists,  who  infer  from  the  supposed 
"  concomitance  "  of  the  body  and  blood  that  the  reception  of  the 
bread  alone  is  sufficient.  Yet  he  does  not  directly  deny  the 
presence  of  the  blood  in  connection  with  the  body  given  in  the 
bread.  It  suffices  for  him  that  we  have  no  need  of  such  artful 
theories  in  addition  to  the  clear  institution  of  the  Lord.     Even 

'Supra,  pp.  168,  170,  130,  157,  161,459. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  367  sq.  "Supra,  p.  68  sq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  355  sq.  *  Ibid.,  xxix,  295. 

^Ibid.,  XXX,  130;  cf.  supra,  p.  128  sq.  ''Ibid.,  xxx,  418  sq. 

^  Cf.  at  earlier  period,  Vol.  I.  p.  424. 

9  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  361. 


5l6  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

though  there  were  as  much  under  the  one  element  as  under  both, 
the  one  element  would  still  not  be  the  whole  ordinance  of  Christ, 
but  we  would  receive  in  it  only  the  half,  or  a  mutilated  form,  of 
His  appointed  ordinance.^ 

The  adoration  of  the  sacrament  had  become  the  prevalent 
custom  in  the  Lutheran  reformed  churches  in  so  far  as  this  was 
involved  in  the  reception  of  the  elements  by  the  commimicant 
while  in  a  kneeling  posture.  This  Luther  approved  in  view  of 
the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  and,  at  the  same  time,  of  the 
divine  Word  of  promise,  adding  the  remark  that  we  should  at  all 
times  hear  the  Word,  if  not  on  bended  knees,  yet  with  humble 
hearts.'^ 

Luther  always  maintains  that  the  union  of  the  bread  and  body, 
resulting  as  it  does  simply  from  the  appointment  of  Christ,  endures 
only  during  the  act  of  distribution  and  the  reception  by  the  com- 
municant in  whose  behalf  Christ  has  ordained  it.  The  sacrament 
was  given  us,  not  to  be  preserved  and  carried  about,  but  to  be 
eaten  and  drunken.  More  precisely,  he  would  extend  the  time 
of  the  sacrament,  or  the  sacramental  act,  until  all  have  communed, 
the  cup  has  been  drained  and  the  bread  eaten,  and  the  altar  is 
deserted.  He  warns  against  distracting  questions  which  may 
here  arise.  He  declares,  accordingly,  that  we  should  not  be  at 
all  concerned  to  know  whether  the  body  of  Christ  is  still  present 
in  the  wafer  as  enclosed  in  the  sacristy  and  carried  about.  At  a 
later  date,  he  asserts  most  positively  that  "  outside  of  the  use,  the 
sacrament  is  nothing.''  He  yet  always  advises  that,  to  avoid  all 
offence,  the  consecrated  elements  unused  by  a  sick  person,  or 
consecrated  wafers  which  may  have  become  mixed  with  those 
never  consecrated,  should  be  burned.^ 

But  let  us  now  inquire  what  />ar tic u /a r  blessing,  or  what  kind  of 
benefit,  the  body  brings  with  it  in  addition  to  that  already  assured 
in  the  words  of  institution,  which  themselves  already  offer,  and 
to  the  believing  hearer  impart,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and,  with 
it,  eternal  salvation?*  Luther  had  at  first  described  the  body 
given  in  the  external  element  simply  as  a  sign,  seal  and  pledge  of 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  401, 417  sqq. ;  xxxi,  401 ;  xxv,  137  ;  cf.  supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  461. 
^  Cf.  supra,  pp.  69,7059.     Op.  Ex.,  xi,  89.     Briefe,  v,  363.      Supra,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  195. 

3  Briefe,  iv,  390,  652;  v,  233,  573,  578,  608,  777. 

*Cf.,  particularly,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  347,  351 ;  Vol.  II.,  pp.  69  sq.,  76,  Sz. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  5x7 

these  spiritual  blessings,  just  as  in  baptism  and  in  connection  with 
various  promises  of  the  Old  Testament  external  elements  were 
employed  as  signs  and  pledges.  And  it  is  a  pledge  of  a  most 
exalted  and  unique  kind.  That  particular  body  is  presented  as  a 
pledge,  through  the  death  of  which  forgiveness  has  been  secured. 
The  sacrament  is  thus,  according  to  Luther,  a  certification  of  that 
Lord's  Supper,  which  is,  according  to  John  vi.,  also  elsewhere,  in 
the  Word,  imparted  to  faith.'  We  have  been  told,  further,  that 
this  body  itself  is  bestowed  upon  us  for  the  forgiveness  which 
has  been  secured  through  it,^  and  hence  the  "  given  "  of  the 
words  of  institution  is  understood  of  the  giving  of  the  body  to 
the  communicants.  And,  finally,  Luther  attributed  to  the  body, 
as  flesh  of  the  Spirit  and  flesh  of  God  (  Geistesfleisch  and  Gottes- 
fieisch),  also  a  peculiar  efficacy  in  the  bodily  reception  of  it,'  /.  e., 
a  beatifying  efiicacy  for  the  body  of  the  believing  recipients,  who 
receive  it  also  spiritually  for  their  souls.  But  we  must  neverthe- 
less yet  ask  :  *  Is  it  not  still  possible,  according  to  Luther,  for 
faith,  even  without  this  bodily  reception  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
through  the  Word  alone  to  appropriate  the  entire  Christ,  with  all 
His  spiritual  blessings,  to  the  eternal  salvation  and  life  of  the 
entire  personality  of  man?  This  question  presses  upon  us  with 
the  greater  urgency,  as  we  have  noted,  in  the  present  and  the 
preceding  chapters,  the  complete  efficacy  ascribed  to  the  Word 
and  faith  in  general.^  It  is,  moreover,  worthy  of  note  in  this 
connection,  that  the  claims  of  special  benefit  for  our  bodies 
asserted  in  the  controversy  with  Zwingli  and  CEcolampadius  now 
fall  in  his  other  writings  decidedly  into  the  background.  We  find 
it  but  once  more  asserted,  in  the  House  Postils^  that,  as  the  holy 
Fathers  also  declare,  our  mortal  bodies  are  to  be  here  nourished 
into  eternal  life  through  the  immortal  food  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  placed  in  our  mouth.'  And  in  his  eschatology  Luther 
makes  no  reference  to  the  benefit  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 

•Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  376. 

^  Supra,  p.   112  sq.  ^  Supra,  pp.   122,  125  sqq. 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  128.  *  Supra,  pp.  426  sq.,  503,  506. 

«  Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  476. 

'Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  2,  icx),  says,  indeed, 
that  the  view  referred  to  still  echoes  occasionally  in  Luther's  sermons,  but,  so 
far  as  as  we  can  discover,  knows  only  this  one  example  (the  page  of  which  is 
not  rightly  given  in  his  reference). 


5l8  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

sacrament  as  specifically  affecting  the  body  of  the  recipient.  The 
forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is,  indeed,  received  already  in  the  Word, 
appears  again,  even  in  the  controversial  writings  against  Zwingli, 
as  the  principal  ching.'  The  Larger  Catechism  describes  the 
body  of  Christ  as  a  creasure,  through  which  just  this  same  for- 
giveness is  secured.  It  is  said  to  be  appropriated  by  us  in  the 
distributed  body ;  and  this  body,  it  is  asserted,  cannot  be  a  fruit- 
less thing.-  It  is  here  merely  mentioned  in  an  incidental  way, 
that  when  our  soul  is  restored  to  health  our  body  is  also  at  the 
same  time  benefited.^  The  sermon,  Vom  hochwilrdigen  Sacra- 
ment, of  A.  D.  1534,  merely  again  says:  Where  Christ  is,  there 
is  forgiveness  :  here  is  His  body ;  he  who  eats  it  and  believes  that 
it  is  given  for  him  must  surely  have  the  forgiveness  of  sins.*  In 
the  Coiiuneiitary  upon  y^oel,  first  published  in  1547,  the  relation 
of  the  body  of  Christ  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  briefly  set  forth, 
in  the  spirit  of  the  earlier  writings  of  the  Reformer,  as  follows  : 
God  has,  as  it  were,  locked  up  (included)  the  Word  of  forgive- 
ness in  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  latter  has  the 
promise  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  given  for  us,  and,  together  with 
the  promise,  the  body  itself  is  proffered  to  us  with  the  bread,  in 
order  that  our  hearts  may  the  more  firmly  lean  upon  the  promise.^ 
We  may,  then,  summarize  our  results  as  to  Luther's  conception 
of  the  significance  of  the  distribution  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the 
sacrament  as  follows  :  It  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  great  matter  for 
us  that  God  desires  to  help  us  in  so  manv  ways.®  Here  we  have 
the  advantage,  that  the  blessing  of  forgiveness  is  also  brought 
home  specifically  to  the  individual  believer  in  a  way  more  direct 
than  in  the  general  proclamation  of  the  truth  in  preaching.'' 
Here  is,  further,  given  (otherwise  than  in  private  absolution)  the 
most  exalted  pledge,  the  body  of  Christ  itself.  Here  the  life 
residing  in  the  body  of  Christ  (yet  otherwise  than,  as  the  Larger 
Catechism  testifies,  in  baptism)  is  also  imparted  directly  to  our 
body,  in  order  that  it  may  become  effectual  in  the  believing 
recipient^"     We   must,   however,    be    careful,    in    attempting    to 

'Vol.  II.,  p.  149  sq.    2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  145  sq  ;  cf.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  113,  150. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  152  •'Ibid.,  ii,  208  sqq. 

5  Jena,  iv.  809  b ;  cf.  S06  b. 

"Vol.  II.,  p.  129.  'Vol.  II.,  p.  114;  cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  186. 

^Cf.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  1 26  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  519 

represent  accurately  the  view  of  Luther,  not  to  lay  more  stress 
upon  the  last-nientioned  item  than  he  himself  does,  however 
important  in  itself  it  may  appear  to  us. 

If  we  be  now  called  upon  to  explain,  in  view  of  all  the  fore- 
going, why  Luther,  in  his  intei-pretation  of  the  tuords  of  institution, 
clung  so  pertinaciously  and  anxiously  to  the  literal  sense,'  we 
dare  not  look  for  the  real  reason  in  any  entirely  peculiar  benefit, 
or  blessing,  as,  in  his  view, proffered  by  the  woids  only  when  so 
understood ;  nor  dare  we  trace  it  back  to  the  inner  impulse, 
inspired  by  mystical  or  theosophic  tendencies,  to  find  the  divine 
and  the  material  {kreatiiiiic/ie)  as  intimately  united  as  possible, 
or,  at  least,  to  find  the  divine  revealing  and  proffering  itself  to 
us  in  things  visible.  Although  his  theory  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
did,  indeed,  harmonize  very  fully  in  the  latter  respect  with  his 
general  view  of  the  divine  method  of  self-revelation^  yet  the 
former  would  not  have  been  absolutely  required  by  the  latter,  nor 
even  secured  by  it  against  objections.  The  decisive  reason  for 
his  pertinacity  in  maintaining  the  position  in  question  was,  and 
always  remained,  for  him  precisely  that  which  he  himself  uni- 
formly gave,  /.  e.,  that  it  is  unauthorized  and,  as  the  ancient  alle- 
gorists  as  well  as  the  modem  fanatics  prove,  highly  perilous,  to 
depart  from  the  literal  sense  without  urgent  occasion  furnished 
by  the  Scriptures  and  faith  themselves.  Such  an  occasion  it  was 
the  more  difficult  for  him  to  discover  in  the  arguments  of  his 
opponents,  the  greater  the  barrenness  actually  revealed  by  their 
very  first  attempts  at  exegesis,  the  more  evidently  they  were  influ- 
enced by  inferences  of  mere  human  reason,  the  more  distinctly 
there  was  combined  with  their  opposition  to  the  presence  of  the 
body  a  general  denial  of  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  as  a  divine 
gift,  and  the  more  boldly  he  himself,  on  the  other  hand,  in  har- 
mony with  the  principles  avowed  in  other  connections,  rejected 
all  the  presumptuous  suggestions  of  reason,  felt  himself  compelled, 
in  accordance  with  his  whole  conception  of  the  plan  of  salvation, 
to  hold  fast  to  the  nature  of  the  sacrament  as  he  had  appre- 
hended it,  and,  finally,  discovered  here  also  a  divinely- proffered 
satisfaction  of  the  inner  impulse  above  mentioned. 

Having  taken  into  view  the  essential  nature  of  the  sacrament 
and  the  gift  which  Christ  therein  bestows  upon  us,  we  must  always, 

J  Cf.  Vol.  II.,  p.  257. 


520  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

with  Luther,  consider  further,  that  in  celebratuig  the  holy  Supper 
we  are  to  celebrate  the  memory  of  the  Lord  and  of  His  death — 
that  is,  we  are  here  to  recall  with  open  acknowledgment,  thanks- 
giving and  praise  what  He  has  done,  suffered  and  given  for  us. 
Such  a  commemoration  of  Christ  is  also  really  a  thank-offering, 
or  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving ;  and  this  name  may  accordingly  be 
given  to  the  reception,  or  use,  of  the  sacrament.  But  the  sacra- 
ment itself  is  not  a  sacrifice  \  it  is  a  gift  of  God,  which  we  receive 
with  thanksgiving.' 

This  commemoration  is,  moreover,  to  be  publicly  celebrated  by 
ministers  and  communicants.  So  strongly  does  Luther  insist 
upon  this,  that  he  advises  believing  Christians  who,  surrounded 
by  Papists,  could  not  venture  to  celebrate  the  Holy  Supper 
openly,  to  omit  its  observance  altogether,  although  at  the  same 
time  urging  them  to  the  study  of  the  Word  in  their  homes.^  This 
was  an  entirely  different  matter  from  the  reception  of  the  com- 
munion by  the  sick  in  their  own  homes  in  accordance  with  the 
recognized  order  of  the  Church.  This  custom  was  sanctioned 
everywhere  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Nevertheless,  Luther,  in  one 
passage,  expresses  disapproval  of  it  and  declares  that  he  would 
like  to  see  it  abolished.  The  reason  which  he  here  gives  is  that 
the  custom  of  private  communion  becomes,  especially  in  times  of 
pestilence,  an  insufferable  burden  (for  the  Church  and  her  min- 
isters). He  suggests  that  the  sick  might  commune  three  or  foui 
times  in  the  year,  and  then  seek  strength  through  the  ^^'ord 
upon  the  approach  of  death.  Yet  we  may  suspect  that  his  views 
were  here  colored  by  the  influence  of  his  conception  of  the  act 
as  properly  a  public  one.'' 

From  the  study  of  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  its 
public  and  general  celebration  we  are  naturally  led  back  to  that 
fruit  or  effect  of  its  observance  of  which  Luther  chiefly  spoke  in 

iVol.  II.,  pp.  82,  124  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  ii,  207,  247;  xxiii,  lcS4,  1S9  sq. 
Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  352  sq. 

2  Jena,  ii,  577  b.  Briefe,  iv,  160,  270,  330,  596;  v,  38  sq.  Luther  ad- 
vises the  Lutherans  of  Augsburg  to  petition  the  Zwinglian  magistrate  of  that 
city  for  permission  to  hold  regular  celebrations  of  the  communion  in  their 
homes,  which  would  thus  be  to  a  certain  extent  a  public  confession  (Briefe, 
vi,  144). 

■'  Briefe,  v,  227  sq.  ;  cf.  also,  in  regard  to  clinical  communion,  Erl.  Ed., 
xxij  256  sq. ,  and,  further,  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  307  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  5  21 

his  first  publication  upon  the  subject  of  the  sacrament,  /.  e.,  the 
fellowship  of  believers  with  one  another  in  Christ.  As  they  eat 
of  one  table  and  unitedly  make  public  confession,  they  should 
also — yet  more  fully  than  through  the  mere  oral  Gospel — become 
of  one  mind  and  heart  in  faith  and  love.  There  is  here  a 
"  conimunio.'"  They  should  be  as  one  loaf,  or  cake,  since  they 
have  all  the  possessions  (blessings)  of  Christ  in  common,  share 
their  treasures  the  one  with  the  other,  and  in  their  entire  out- 
ward life  are,  in  mutual  helpfulness,  like  one  body.  Luther 
again  cites  the  illustrations  used  by  the  ancient  Fathers,  of  the 
grains  which  have  united  to  form  the  one  communion-loaf,  and 
the  grapes  which  have  mingled  their  juice  in  the  one  cup.'  It 
was  precisely  in  this  oneness  of  believers  in  the  spiritual  body  of 
Christ  that  he  still,  in  his  Grosses  Bekenntniss  vom  Abendmahl, 
found  that  which  is  to  be  "  typified  and  indicated  "  by  the  sacra- 
ment itself.^ 

Thus  the  utterances  of  the  Reformer  in  regard  to  the  Lord's 
Supper  retain  from  first  to  last  their  unbroken  inner  consistency. 

d.  Absolution.     Private  Confession.     Excommunication. 

IMPARTS    forgiveness DEPENDENT    UPON     POWER    OF    THE    KEYS 

ANNOUNCES    GRACE    TO    INDIVIDUALS REQUIREMENTS    FOR    RECEP- 
TION  OBJECTIVE    CERTAINTY DOES    NOT    FOLLOW    FORGIVENESS 

INVOLVES  OTHER  AGENCIES ADMINISTRATION  BY  LAYMEN PRIVATE 

CONFESSION RELATION    TO    CHIEF    MEANS    OF    GRACE— EXCOMMU- 
NICATION  NO    OTHER    SACRAMENTS. 

Through  the  Word,  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  holds 
Luther,  is  it  the  purpose  of  God  to  save  us.  But  he  frequently 
associates  with  these  also  Absolution,  as  constituting  with  them 
means  through  which  we  are  to  have  Christ  in  closest  contact 
with  ourselves.^  Of  the  latter  he  expressly  sa3's,  that  we  are  to 
draw  (fiolen^  forgiveness  from  it  j  and  while,  on  the  one  hand,  it 
must  be    received    in  faith,  faith    is,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  338  sqq.  ;  Vol.  II.,  pp.  67,  1 14,  149.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  167  sqq  ; 
186  sqq.  ;  ii,  209  sqq. ;   iv,  220. 

2  Supra,  p.   184.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  271  ;  cf.  Vol.  1.,  p.  338  sq. 
«Thus,  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  82. 


522  THE    THEOLOGV    OF    LUTHER. 

Strengthened  by  it,  just  as  by  the  sacraments  and  preaching. 
What  is,  then,  its  pecuHar  significance?  ' 

Luther's  conception  of  the  nature  and  proper  use  of  absokition 
was  developed  and  clarified  already,  in  its  chief  outlines,  in  the 
course  of  the  investigations  and  discussions  occasioned  by  the 
publication  of  his  Ninety-five  Theses?  The  forgiveness  of  sins  is, 
as  he  then  already  declared,  really  imparted  to  the  individual  in 
the  absolution  pronounced  by  the  confessor;  and  this  occurs, 
further,  by  virtue  of  the  pcnuer  of  the  keys  which  Christ  has' 
granted  to  His  Church,  or  by  virtue  of  the  words  of  promise  : 
"  whosoever  sins  ye  remit,"  etc.,  "  what  ye  loose  on  earth,"  etc. 
By  virtue  of  this  \V"ord,  the  absolution  is  entirely  valid  even  when 
pronounced  by  unworthy  persons — and  also  when,  in  consequence 
of  unbelief,  it  is  not  received  by  the  person  to  whom  it  is 
announced.  By  virtue  of  this  same  Word,  it  is  perfectly  valid 
upon  the  lips  of  any  Christian  brother,  since  it  depends  not  at  all 
upon  the  character  of  the  person  administering  it,  but  upon  the 
Word  of  promise,  and  since  the  keys  belong  to  all  Christians,  or 
disciples  of  Christ. 

Whilst  we  shall  find  these  principles  uniformly  maintained  in 
all  the  later  utterances  of  Luther  upon  the  subject,  it  will  still  be 
necessary  for  us  to  examine  more  closely  the  relation  to  the  means 
of  grace  in  general  which  he  is  thus  led  to  ascribe  to  absolution. 

The  power  of  the  keys  is,  in  the  unvarying  view  of  Luther, 
"  an  office,  power,  or  commandment  given  by  God  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church  through  Christ  to  forgive  men  (their)  sin."  Accord- 
ingly, the  grace  of  God  is  announced,  or  declared,  to  individuals 
— and,  in  the  very  act  of  such  declaration,  forgiveness  itself  is 
imparted.  The  benediction  pronounced  in  absolution  is  not 
only  imprecatory  {iinpfccativa),  but  declarative,  effective,  coUa- 
tive  {ifidicativa,  constitutiva,  collativa).  The  father-confessor, 
or  other  administrant,  shall  say :  "  I,  upon  the  command  of 
Christ,  forgive  thee,"  and  this  is  intended  to  mean  :  "  I  reconcile 
thy  soul  with  God,  I  remove  [aufero)  from  thee  the  wrath  of 
God,"  etc.     He  shall  then  also  ask  the  confessing  persons  if  they 

'Cf.  in  my — Luther's  I.ehre  von  der  Kirche,  Stuttg.,  1853,  pp.  26-47; 
Steitz,  die  Privatheichte  und  Privatabsolution  in  der  luth.  Kirche,  Frankf., 
1854,  and,  especially,  Pfisterer,  Luther's  Lehre  von  der  Beichte,  Stuttg.,  1857. 

■■^  Vol.  L,  p.  255  sqq.,  especially  p.  259  sqq. ;  also,  Vol.  L,  pp.  402  (upon 
the  Keys),  294,  303,  305. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  523 

believe  that  his  forgiveness  is  the  forgiveness  of  God.  Christ,  he 
argues,  did  not  say  :  "  What  I  loose  in  heaven,  shall  ye  also  loose 
on  earth  " — so  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  us  first  to  discover 
what  God  looses  in  heaven ;  but  he  says  :  "  If  ye  do  it,  it  shall 
be  done — it  is  to  be  one  work  {einerlei),  yours  and  mine,  and 
not  a  double  work — if  ye  loose,  I  have  already  loosed."  The 
loosing  by  means  of  the  power  of  the  keys  is  therefore  the 
"  word  and  decision  of  God  Himself,"  and  we  should  trust  in  it 
most  implicitly.'  Thus,  the  power  of  the  keys  (German:  the 
Key)  is  never  an  ineffectual  nor  a  varying  power  (Key),  but  its 
"  loosing  "  is  always  certain.  This  does  not  depend  upon  the 
personality  of  the  administrant.  Even  if  the  devil  should  have 
slipped  into  the  pastoral  office  and  pronounced  absolution  in  the 
Church  and  administered  the  sacrament  of  the  altar  according  to 
the  command  of  Christ,  we  would  in  such  case  have  received 
proper  absolution,  and  the  real  sacrament  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
Nor  does  the  certainty  of  the  forgiveness  depend  upon  the  dis- 
position or  deportment  of  the  individual  to  whom  it  is  announced. 
There  must,  indeed,  be  contrition  in  the  individual  if  he  is  to 
appropriate  the  forgiveness  in  faith ;  '^  and  the  appropriating 
agency  is  faith  itself ;  but  even  where  this  is  wanting  in  the  one 
to  whom  the  absolution  is  given,  the  power  of  the  keys  has  never- 
theless done  its  part,  and  has  neither  erred  nor  lied.  The  gift 
was  there,  but  it  was  not  accepted — just  as  a  castle  presented  to 
me  by  a  king,  has  been  certainly  given  to  me,  even  though  I  do 
not  accept  it ;  or  as  gold  given  to  another  retains  its  nature 
even  though  the  latter  despises  it ;  or  as  the  sun  truly  shines  and 
is  the  real  sun  even  if  we  should  crawl  into  some  dark  corner.  In 
this  sense,  therefore,  Luther  will  hear  absolutely  nothing  of  a 
"  conditional  key "  {clavis  coiuiitionalis)  ;  that  is,  of  a  key 
which  should  assert  that  it  loosed  us  if  we  were  penitent  and 
pious,  but  failed  to  do  so  if  such  were  not  the  case.  The  abso- 
lution is  to  be  given  unconditionally,  although  for  its  reception 
there  is  required  the  faith  which  is  to  lay  hold  upon  this  very 
same  sure  Word  of  forgiveness.  But  this  faith,  according  to 
Luther,  is  under  all  circumstances  absolutely  necessary  for  the 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  170  sq.,  178.     Op.  Ex.,  vii,  52  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  17  sqq.; 
xxxi,  169  sq.,  174. 

'^  Cf.  also,  supra,  p.  431  sq. 


524  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

reception  of  the  offered  absolution,  or,  rather,  it  is  the  very  recep- 
tion itself.  Without  it,  the  gift  already  bestowed  is  again  lost. 
"  If  thou  believest,  thou  hast  it ;  if  thou  believest  not,  thou  hast 
nothing."  To  this  extent,  therefore,  absolution  is,  after  all, 
conditional :  "  Every  absolution  has  the  condiiio  of  faith,  for 
without  faith  it  does  not  remit,  and  (yet)  it  is  not  on  that  ac- 
count an  errant  key."  ' 

If  we  now  inquire  upon  what  grounds  absolution  should  be 
admi7iisfered  to  particular  individuals,  we  shall  not  find  Luther 
depending  upon  the  administrant's  conviction  of  the  contrition 
and  faith  of  the  person  desiring  to  be  absolved,  or  of  his  real 
inner  attitude  toward  God.  Of  this,  the  administrant  could,  for 
one  thing,  never  be  sure,  and  we  would  again  have  an  errant 
key ;  and,  moreover,  it  is  just  through  the  Word  of  absolution 
itself  that  the  faith  required  for  its  apprehension  is  to  be  rightly 
excited.  It  is  necessary  only,  which  is  always  assumed  as  a 
matter  of  course,  to  see  to  it  that  the  persons  applying  do  not 
live  in  open  impenitence  and  sin  (see  fuller  discussion  below, 
in  connection  with  the  theory  of  excommunication^,  and  that 
they  themselves  confess  their  sin  and  express  sorrow  for  it.  Nor 
is  the  administrant  to  be  disturbed  by  the  fear  that  the  applicant 
may  lack  all  proper  understanding  of  the  saving  truth  with  which 
absolution  has  to  do.  Of  this,  however,  we  shall  have  occasion 
to  speak  further  when  discussing  private  confession.^ 

This,  therefore — the  special  bestowal  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
upon  individuals  through  the  permanent,  established  power  of 
the  keys — is,  according  to  Luther,  the  exalted  privilege  granted  to 
believers  under  the  new  covenant,  but  which  had  not  been 
enjoyed  by  the  saints  under  the  old  covenant.^ 

Luther's  view  of  the  objective  certainty  of  the  forgiveness  im- 
parted in  absolution,  even  when  faith  is  wanting,  is  in  perfect 
analogy  with  his  position  as  to  the  objective  and  real  content  of 
the  sacraments.  We  may  be  disposed  to  ask  whether  forgiveness 
can,  indeed,  be  conceived  of  as  an  entity  objectively  present  and 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  362;  viii,  303;  xlvi.  123;  xi,  367  sqq.  ;  xxxi,  169,  142, 
147  sq.  Vol.  I.,  p.  262.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  172;  xliv,  165  sqq.;  v,  176. 
Briefe,  iv,  482. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  162  sq. ;  iii,  367.      Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  264. 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  266.397,  note;  Vol.  II.,  p.  362 sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xx,  192;  xxvii, 
339.     Briefe,  iv,  481. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  .  52^ 

independent  of  the  faith  which  is  to  receive  it,  and  whether  God 
can  really  bestow  it,  as  a  treasure,  or  gold,  may  be  given,  in  cases 
where  He  finds  no  susceptibility  for  its  reception.  We  may  be 
inclined  to  interpret  the  utterances  of  Luther  as  meaning  only 
that  the  possibility  of  attaining  the  forgiving  grace  of  God  is  here 
presented  to  men  in  a  special  way  (otherwise  than  in  the  general 
preaching  of  the  Gospel).  This  would,  however,  be  clearly  a 
departure  from  the  position  which  Luther  himself  has  assumed. 
He  himself  gives  us  no  further  reply  to  such  questions,  no  further 
explanation  of  his  teaching  upon  the  subject. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  further,  that  he  now  no  longer,  as  at  first,' 
locates  the  actual  forgiveness  upon  God's  part  before  the  formal 
absolution,  regarding  the  latter  then  as  serving  only  for  the  full 
subjective  attestation  of  the  former.  On  the  contrary,  God  is 
represented  as  forgiving  only  with  and  in  the  remission  consum- 
mated in  the  act  of  absolution ;  and  not  only  the  certainty  of 
forgiveness,  but  forgiveness  itself,  is  attained  only  by  the  indi- 
vidual who  confidently  lays  hold  upon  the  Word  of  absolution. 
It  is,  according  to  the  unvarying  representation  of  Luther,  only 
confident  faith  w^hich  has  justifying  power.^  The  interpretation 
suggested  above  would  not,  indeed,  be  even  thus  excluded,  but 
it  has,  as  before  observed,  not  been  presented  by  him. 

Some  additional  considerations  are  necessary  in  immediate 
connection  with  the  general  subject  of  absolution  as  above  pre- 
sented. First  of  all,  we  observe  that,  according  to  Luther's 
habitual  manner  of  dealing  with  the  subject  and  his  entire  doc- 
trine concerning  the  means  of  grace,  forgiveness,  or  absolution  in 
general,  is  by  no  means  to  be  thought  of  as  imparted  only  in  the 
form  of  absolution  here  in  question,  /.  e.,  that  in  which  the  sins 
of  an  individual  are  forgiven  directly  through  the  Word  spoken 
above  him.  It  takes  place,  on  the  other  hand,  also  in  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and,  above  all,  according  to  Luther,  in 
the  simple  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  message,  and  hence  in 
every  Christian  sermon.''  Thus  Luther  applies  the  passage,  John 
XX.  23,  and  attributes  the  power  of  the  keys  also  to  the  office  of 
the  ministry  at  large,  although  usually  referring  them  specifically 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  257  5qq. 

«  Vol.  II.,  p.  426  sqq. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  295,  156  sq. ;  v,  170  sqq  ;   xlv,  109. 


526  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

to  private  absolution ;  ^  and  the  latter  is  frequently  included 
under  the  general  conception  of  the  administration  of  the  Gospel, 
which  embraces  also  preaching,  or  under  the  "  oral  Word."  The 
Gospel  is  a  general  absolution.  The  same  ^^'ord  which  is,  in 
preaching,  proclaimed  publicly  and  in  general  terms  is  then 
addressed  particularly,  in  (private)  absolution,  to  such  individuals 
as  desire  it.  This  is  nothing  more  than  declaring  the  Gospel  to 
a  single  person,  who  thus  receives  comfort  in  view  of  the  con- 
fessed sin.'^  At  the  same  time,  Luther  by  no  means  desired  to  ex- 
clude the  employment  of  the  "  public,  general  absolution,"  in  which 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  is,  in  express  and  fixed  terms,  announced 
to  the  assembled  congregation  in  connection  with  regular  divine 
servMce,  occupying,  as  it  does,  an  intermediate  position  between 
public  preaching  and  private  absolution.  He  expressed  his 
opinion  in  regard  to  this  when  a  controversy  had  arisen  on  the 
subject  among  the  clergy  of  Nuremberg,  and  himself  prepared  a 
liturgical  formula  for  use  upon  such  occasions,  in  which  he  pre- 
scribes the  following  language:  "I  declare  *  *  *  all  who 
are  now  here  *  *  *  and  with  penitence  *  *  «  believe 
in  Christ,  free,"  etc.  To  the  objection,  that  this  was  conditional, 
he  replied  that  it  was  indeed  so,  just  as  is  every  general  or 
private  absolution.'' 

In  the  second  place,  we  must  again  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that,  according  to  Luther,  not  only  the  regularly  appointed  con- 
fessor, or  pastor,  but  every  Christian  brother,  may  pronounce  for- 
giveness with  full  authority  and  perfect  validity.  Luther  repeats 
this  with  extraordinary  frequency  even  in  his  later  and  latest 
works.  It  is  his  custom,  even  when  himself  assisting  distressed 
souls  to  find  the  assurance  of  pardon,  to  direct  them  at  the  same 
time  also  to  the  lay  brother.  He  rejoices  that  they  can  have 
forgiveness  thus  in  the  fellowship  of  believers,  wherever  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  (Matt,  xviii.  19,  20),  and  that  Christ 
has  crowded  every  corner  full  of  it.  He  most  frequently  (as 
at  the  very  beginning  *)  says  that  we  can  secure  it  from  the  priest, 
or,   ;/  necessary,   from  any  brother — though  he  not  nafrequently 

1  Jena,  ii,  582  b  (cf.  supra,  p.  86).  Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  296;  iii,  37 1;  xi,  294  sq. 
Jena,  iv,  362. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi.  171 ;   xi,  294  sqq.      P.riefe.  iv,  443  sqq.,  481  sqq. 
'  Briefe,  iv,  445  ;  vi,  176,  245.     Cf.  Corp.  Reform.,  iii,  957. 
*Vid.  Vol.  I.,  p.  261. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  527 

omits  the  conditional  intermediate  clause.  By  necessity,  in  this 
case,  he  by  no  means  understands  such  extreme  circumstances  as 
sudden  emergencies,  the  unexpected  approach  of  death,  etc., 
when  no  clergyman  can  be  summoned,  as  in  the  somewhat  similar 
instance  of  lay-baptism,  which  is  thus  carefully  guarded.  On 
the  contrary,  he  includes,  for  example,  under  the  term  distress 
of  conscience  on  account  of  such  sins  as  one  would  be  ashamed 
to  acknowledge  in  the  presence  of  the  pastor,  and  would  rather 
pour  out  in  humble  confession  into  the  bosom  of  some  other 
trustworthy,  pious  Christian.'  He  speaks  then  of  consolation 
given  to  the  distressed  one  by  his  brother,  of  the  comforting 
passages  of  Scripture  which  may  be  quoted,  etc.,  discriminating 
between  such  ministrations  and  "  absolution,"  or  the  formal 
official  act  of  the  pastor.'  But  yet  actual  absolution,  which  in  its 
essential  character  stands  upon  the  same  level,  is  here  also, 
in  his  view,  consummated.  Upon  the  one  hand,  he  often  de- 
scribes the  act  of  the  official  confessor  simply  as  a  com 
forting  of  the  distressed  penitent ;  whilst  he  represents  the  brother, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  by  his  words  of  consolation  pronouncing 
forgiveness  itself,  and  even  employs  for  the  act  of  the  latter  the 
term  "  absolution."  He  himself  with  great  earnestness  calls 
upon  Spalatin,  when  the  latter  was  in  distress,  to  receive  absolu- 
tion (by  letter)  from  him,  not  as  his  regular  spiritual  adviser,  but 
as  a  brother.  "  Christ,"  says  he,  "  speaks  through  me — He 
Himself  absolves  thee."  He  declares,  in  general,  that  a  brother's 
word  is  "  yea  "  before  God.  is  God's  own  Word,  and  just  as  good 
as  that  of  the  priest.  To  the  section  upon  confession  in  the 
Visitationsitnterriclit  for  Electoral  Saxony,  prepared  in  1528, 
he  himself  in  1538  appended  the  remark:  The  reception  of 
absolution  from  the  confessor  should  be  optional — for  those  who 
may  perhaps  prefer  to  receive  it  from  their  pastor,  as  a  public 
officer  of  the  Church,  rather  than  from  another  person.  So  little 
does  he  recognize  any  specific  difference  between  the  formal 
ecclesiastical  administration  and   that  "  through  another."  ■*     In 

^Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  376;  xliv,  107  sqq.,  117,  125.  Jena,  ii,  566  b.  Erl. 
Ed.,  iii,  366,  370  sqq.;  vi,  297;  xi,  334  sq.  ;  vi,  34I.  Jena,  iv,  362.  Op. 
Ex.,  xi,  136,  239;  ix,  23. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  108,  112  ;  xlvi,  292. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  164  sq.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  261,  402  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  107  ?qq. ; 
vi,  341  ;  V,  170  sq. ;  xi,  319,  318,  156  sq.  ;  v,  165  ;  xlvi,  I  23  ;  xlvii,  217  sq. 
Briefe,  v,  680  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  40  sq. 


528  THE    IHEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  Suiakald  Articles-,  he  places  side  by  side  with  forgiveness 
through  the  power  of  the  keys  that  "  through  mutual  colloquy 
and  the  consolation  of  brethren,"  according  to  Matt,  xviii.  20. 
But,  in  another  passage,  while  citing  Matt,  xviii.  20  in  illustration 
of  ecclesiastical  absolution,  he  deduces  that  pronounced  by 
brethren  also  from  the  promise  in  John  xx.  23  and  from  the  power 
of  the  keys.  The  keys,  he  asserts,  are  distributed  to  every  house  ; 
we  have  "  liberty  to  administer  the  keys  privately."  '  He  even 
applies  the  term  "  office  "  {Ai/it)  to  the  power  which  private  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  possess  to  render  service  to  one  another 
in  announcing  the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  (according  to  Matt. 
ix.  8)  :  "  God  has  bound  us  together  by  this  office,  in  order  that 
one  Christian  may  pronounce  to  another,"  etc.^  He  can  con- 
sistently speak  thus,  since  the  keys  have,  according  to  his  unvary- 
ing teaching,  been  given  to  the  entire  Church,  and  hence  also  to 
individual  members  for  their  mutual  fellowship.  The  declara- 
tions in  Matt,  xviii.  18  and  John  xx.  21  sqq.  apply  to  «// disciples 
of  Christ.  All  Christians  have,  wherever  two  or  three  of  them 
are  gathered  together  in  Christ's  name,  "  precisely  all  the  power 
which  St.  Peter  and  all  the  apostles  (possessed)."  ^ 

No  one  should,  however,  presume  to  exercise  this  common 
power  publicly,  unless  publicly  elected  for  such  purpose  by  the 
congregation.  I  may,  therefore,  pronounce  an  absolution  for 
my  neighbor,  who  reveals  to  me  his  peculiar  trouble,  but  I  must 
do  so  only  "  privately  "  {heimlich).  I  dare  not  seat  myself  in 
the  Church  to  hear  confession.*  The  position  here  taken  is  thus 
in  complete  harmony  with  the  utterances  of  Luther,  particularly 
in  his  later  years,  in  denunciation  of  presumptuous  exercise  of 
the  public  ministry  of  the  Word,  or  of  official  duties  in  the 
Church,  without  a  proper  call.  The  practice  of  private  absolution 
may,  indeed,  when  exercised  without  regard  to  the  special  neces- 
sities of  particular  brethren  or  to  their  peculiar  personal  relations 
toward  one  another,  become  such  an  unauthorized  assumption  of 
authority.     But,  considered  in  itself,  it  naturally  falls,  not  under 

'Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  136;  xiii,  334  sq.  Jena,  iv,  362.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  318; 
xliv,  107,  125. 

»  Erl.  Ed.,  V,  176;  cf.  also  xi,  338. 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  309,  414.  Jena,  ii,  582  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  173  sq. ;  xi, 
318,  339;  xxxi,  371,  and  very  especially,  vi,  297  sq. ;  xxvi,  165  sq. 

♦Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  318. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  529 

the  head  of  congregational,  ecclesiastical  acts,  or  public  institu- 
tions and  ordinances,  but  it  is  similar  to  the  private  use  of  the 
Word  in  general,  which  it  is  the  province  of  the  brother  to  make 
in  dealing  with  his  brother,  or  of  a  father  in  relation  to  his  house- 
hold. It  is  to  be  observed,  also,  that  Luther  was  never  called 
upon  by  force  of  circumstances  to  bear  specific  testimony  against 
any  abuse  of  the  privilege.  The  fanatical  sects  did  not  under- 
take to  hold  confession,  but  would  hear  nothing  of  confession 
and  private  absolution.  We  recognize,  upon  the  other  hand,  in 
the  writings  of  the  Reformer  during  the  present  period,  the  con- 
stant effort  to  avoid  the  assumptions  of  the  papal  priesthood,  with 
its  confessional  practices  and  its  power  of  the  keys. 

But,  in  additon  to  the  public  preaching  of  the  Word  and  the 
absolution  which  it  already  involves,  private  absolution  retains  for 
Luther  an  exalted  and  peculiar  value,  from  the  fact  that  in  it  for- 
giveness is  imparted  to  me  as  one  particular  person — "  privately, 
specially,  individually."  Thus  I  can  here  be  right  certain  of  it, 
as  intended  fo7-  me,  and  can  grasp  it  for  myself,  whereas  in  the 
congregation  it  floats  out  over  the  whole  assembly,  and  may, 
indeed,  reach  me  with  the  rest,  but  I  am  still  not  so  sure  of  it  as 
when  addressed  to  me  alone.  Hence,  too,  it  follows  that  I 
should  first  unburden  my  heart  to  the  person  from  whom  I  desire 
to  receive  absolution,  telling  him  all  the  troubles  which  oppress 
me,  seeking  his  advice,  so  that  I  may  receive  the  absolution  with 
direct  reference  to  the  particular  emergency.  Luther  directs  our 
attention  here  again  to  the  significance  which  he  ascribes  in 
general  to  the  mediation  and  application  of  the  divine  agency 
through  human  instrumentality  (<?.  g.,  through  the  spoken  Word  '), 
and,  still  further,  to  the  special  significance,  even  for  the  media- 
tion and  personal  experience  of  salvation  itself,  which  he  attrib- 
utes, within  the  Church,  to  the  communion  of  the  saints  and  their 
mutual  influence  upon  one  another  in  the  service  of  Christ.  In 
society,  says  Luther,  among  my  neighbors  and  brethren,  and  not 
in  a  corner,  nor  in  the  wilderness,  nor  in  a  solitary  cell,  am  I  to 
seek  for  what  I  need.  Hence  he  cites  Matt,  xviii.  20  in  support, 
particularly  of  private  absolution,  but  also  of  the  formal  ordinance 
of  the  Church,  and  often  designedly  designates  the  pastor  as  a 
neighbor,  or  brother.     Nor  are  we  to  overlook  the  influence,  in 

1  Supra,  p.  494. 

34 


530  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

this  personal  interview  of  the  pastor  or  brother  with  the  candi- 
date for  absolution,  of  "  the  living  voice,"  to  which  reference  has 
been  already  made.  And  we  recall,  still  further,  Luther's  own 
experience,  especially  while  yet  in  the  monastery.' 

It  was,  therefore,  not  without  a  substantial  reason  that  Luther, 
while  allowing  liberty  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  keys 
by  laymen  in  private,  yet  did  not  desire  to  see  the  public  ordi- 
nance of  the  confessional  neglected,  but,  on  the  contrary,  always 
represented  the  latter  as  the  primary,  orderly  and  regular  method. 
Here,  he  held,  we  have  particular  persons,  of  whom  we  know  that 
they  have  been  especially,  and  for  each  one  among  us,  entrusted 
by  God  with  the  ministry  of  the  keys;  and  that  they  have, 
furthermore,  as  office-bearers  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  a  "  partic- 
ular commandment  "  for  the  rendering  of  such  service.^ 

It  is  especially  timid  persons  and  those  in  spiritual  distress  who 
are  urgently  advised  to  seek  private  absolution  at  the  hands  of 
the  pastor  or,  in  case  of  necessity,  of  any  Christian  brother.  But 
he  declares,  also,  that  it  is  useful  and  necessary  for  every  one, 
since  we  never  rise  to  such  a  height  as  no  longer  to  need  the 
Word  of  forgiveness.^ 

It  is  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  the  absolution  that  Luther  so  earn- 
estly commends  the  retention  of  private  confession  as  an  ordi- 
nance of  the  Christian  Church.*  He  himself  interprets  the  word 
"  beichfeji^''  (or  ^^  be-ich-ten'''')  as  meaning  "confess."  There 
must  be  such  a  continual  inward  "  confession  "  {Beichfc)  upon 
the  part  of  the  believer  in  the  presence  of  God.  There  is  in 
every  repetition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  a  constantly  reiterated  and 
also  a  public  "  confession."  And  every  individual  must  likewise 
confess  his  sin  to  his  neighbor  whom  he  has  injured.  But  we 
speak  now  of  "  that  private  confession  {Beichfc)  in  which  one 
person  takes  another  aside  to  a  separate  place  and  relates  to  him 
what  his  need  and  burden  are,  in  order  that  he  may  receive  from 
the  latter  a  comforting  word,"  etc.^     Lender  the  term  Beich/e, 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  157  sq.  ;  xxvi,  310  sq.  Briefe,  iv,  445.  Jena,  iv,  362  b; 
xliv,  108  sqq. ;  xxvii,  369,  377;  xi,  231;  xxxi,  1 70.  Supra,  p.  494.  Vol. 
I.,  p.  62. 

2  Jena,  iv,  362.     Erl.  Ed.,  v,  165,  170,  174. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  138,  363;  xxvi,  310. 

*Cf,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  402,  463  sq. 

5  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  307  sq.  ;  xxix,  352  sqq. ;   xxiii,  86  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  53  I 

he  further  explahis,  are  included,  according  to  the  prevalent 
ecclesiastical  usage,  two  things,  /.  c,  our  work,  the  confession  and 
the  seeking  for  consolation ;  and  God'?  work,  the  declaring  free 
from  sin.' 

This  technical  confession  is,  indeed,  not  absolutely  necessary, 
as  is  that  first  mentioned,  but  it  is  nevertheless  an  exceedingly 
valuable  exercise,  which  none  but  unworthy  Christians  and  coarse 
swine  despise.  It  is  such  by  virtue  of  the  second  element,  which 
has  been  appointed  to  afford  us  just  such  comfort,  and  which  is 
the  principal  part  of  it  and  its  special  object.  It  is  such,  how- 
ever, also  by  virtue  of  the  personal  confession  which  it  involves, 
although  the  lacter  has  not  been  specifically  included  in  it  by 
Christ  in  establishing  the  ordinance.  The  burden  resting  upon 
the  heart  must  be  revealed,  the  sin  lamented,  in  order  that  the 
person  applied  to  may  declare  forgiveness  for  it.  The  shame 
and  self-humiliation  connected  with  such  confession  are  also  very 
salutary.  The  formal  confession  affords  an  opportunity  also  for 
the  instruction  of  plain,  simple-minded  people  and  for  discovering 
whether  they  know  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Creed,  the  Ten 
Commandments,  etc.  Even  the  rehearsal  of  such  parts  of  the 
Catechism  belongs  to  the  ^'  Be-  ich-ten.'"  Particularly  is  the 
truth  preached  from  the  pulpit  to  be  "  brought  into  operation  " 
properly,  in  individual  cases.,  only  through  the  confessional.'^ 
Especially  should  confession  be  practiced  before  communion, 
not  as  a  necessary  or  compulsory  matter,  but  as  very  useful,  in 
order  that  the  people  may  be  assisted  in  that  self-examination 
which  the  apostle  enjoins,  and  may  not  approach  the  Table  of 
the  Lord  without  understanding,  faith  or  penitence.^ 

But  by  no  means  shall  this  ordinance  ever  be  again  allowed  to 
become  an  instrument  of  torture,  requiring  the  enumeration  of  all 
particular  sins.  It  is  enough  if  the  applicant  confess  himself  a 
sinner,  and  mention  the  special  sins  in  view  of  which  he  partic- 
ularly desires  absolution.  Of  such  persons  as  already  fully  know 
what  sin  is,  as,  for  example,  ministers  and  Melanchthon,  an 
enumeration  of  sins  is  not  to  be  at  all  expected.     "  It  must  be 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  88. 

'^Vol.  I.,  p.  463.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxix,  357  sq  ;  xxvi,  305  sqq. ;  xi,  294  sq.,  157 
sqq  ;   xxiii,  86,  40;   xxviii,  283;  xxvii,  367  sqq.;   xxv,  138;  xxvi,  311. 

^Jena,  ii,  591.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  35;  xi,  180  sq.,  185;  vi,  342;  xxv,  138. 
Briefe,  iv,  283  sq. 


532  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

sufficient,"  said  Luther  already  in  15 18,  "for  the  priest  that  I 
desire  confession  and  absolution,  without  its  being  necessary  for 
him  to  have  a  positive  assurance  (certainty)  of  my  penitence 
and  my  faith."  ' 

Confession  must,  moreover,  always  be  left  optional,  dependent 
upon  the  needs  of  the  individual — even  that  preceding  the  com- 
munion. He  himself,  says  Luther,  unwilling  as  he  would  be  to 
surrender  the  privilege  of  confession,  yet  once  in  a  while  takes 
the  communion  without  first  confessing,  in  order  that  he  may 
not  be  tempted  to  exalt  the  custom  into  a  necessary  matter  of 
conscience,  and  in  order  to  show  his  contempt  for  the  devil.^ 

If  we  inquire,  finally,  what  is  the  relation  of  absolution  to  the 
other  means  of  grace,  we  will  naturally  recall  what  has  been  said 
above  of  the  analogy  between  it  and  the  sacraments ;  and  we 
must  now  further  add  that  not  only  does  Luther  frequently 
associate  it  with  the  latter,  but  that  in  it,  as  a  special  act  applied 
to  us  through  the  external  Word,  Christ  seems  to  him  to  be 
peculiarly  tangible,  or  within  the  range  of  our  powers  of  appre- 
hension; and  hence  he  includes  it  among  "visible  things  and 
signs."  He  is  even  willing  now  to  concede  :  "  We  must  confess 
that  repentance  is  a  sacrament,  inasmuch  as  the  absolution  of  the 
Keys  and  the  faith  of  the  penitent  belong  to  it ;  for  it  has  within 
it  the  promise  and  faith  of  forgiveness,"  etc.^  But  he  still  fails 
to  find  in  it  a  peculiar  visible  sign,  or  any  sign  in  addition  to  the 
Word  of  promise  itself.  The  Word  pronounced  in  private  abso- 
lution he  regards,  as  we  have  seen,  as  falling  under  the  general 
conception  of  the  Word  ;  and  even  the  spoken  Word  itself  he 
regards  as,  in  a  wider  sense,  a  "/<?;-;;/«  visibilisJ"  He  therefore 
now  always  speaks,  in  other  .connections,  adopting  the  strict 
conception  of  a  "  sacrament,"  of  but  two  sacraments,  and  in 
connection  with  them,  of  the  Word,  including  the  Word  of  abso- 
lution.^ 

But  it  is  proper  that,  in  immediate  connection  with  absolution, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  160,  295  ;  xxiii,  85  ;  xxvii,  374  ^xxi,  18;  xxvi,  306;  xxxi, 
162  sq. ;   XX,  186. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxvii,  353  sqq. ;  xvii,  148  sq.  Jena,  ii,  591.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  40, 
35,  195;  ii,  251. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  82  ;  xlvi,  295  ;  Ixv,  173.  Jena,  i,  578.  Cf.  Vol.  I.,  p.  403, 
upon  sacraments  in  the  wider  sense. 

*Vol.  I.,  p.  403.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  418;  xxx,  371. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  533 

or  the  loosing  key,  we  should  consider  also  the  nature  and  office 
of  the  other,  or  binding  key,  i.  e..  Christian  excommunication  ; 
not  only  because  the  two  keys  are  closely  attached  to  one 
another  in  the  designating  term  and  in  their  significance,  but 
also  because  the  binding  likewise  belongs,  as  we  shall  see,  to  the 
administration  of  the  means  of  grace  in  the  congregation. 

"  Binding  "  and  "  retaining  "  sin  are  in  Luther's  conception 
(compare  Matt.  xvi.  19  with  John  xx.  23)  perfectly  synonymous 
terms.  He  says  :  "  Binding  and  loosing  represent  sin  retained 
and  remitted  " — to  which  he  adds  the  remark,  that  a  key  serves 
principally  for  opening,  and  so  Christ  and  the  Church  are  more 
inclined  to  loose  than  to  bind.' 

The  binding  power  of  the  keys  is  represented  as  exercised 
already  in  the  general  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  said  to 
bind  all  the  unbelieving.-  Luther  even  in  one  passage,  when 
commenting  upon  Matt.  xvi.  19,  speaks  of  a  private  condemna- 
tion iyprivata  damnation  by  a  brother.  This  consists,  in  his 
view,  in  fraternal  remonstrance  (^argi/ere),  just  as  the  fraternal 
absolution  consists  in  the  administering  of  consolation.''  But, 
in  other  passages,  he  always  understands  by  it  the  excommuni- 
cation administered  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  Christ 
as  found  in  Matt,  xviii.  15  sqq.,  /.  e.,  "  that  special  function  of 
the  keys  which  is,  by  its  very  nature,  public."  * 

This  binding  is,  however,  designed  to  be  exercised  only  in 
case  of  public  sins,  which  are  clearly  manifest  to  the  Church, 
and  of  which  the  offender,  despite  all  fraternal  and  ecclesiastical 
admonition,  refuses  to  make  penitent  confession  or  to  repent. 
It  must  therefore,  from  its  very  nature,  be  administered  as  a 
public,  congregational  act,  as  Christ  has  commanded.  The 
open  sinner  is  to  be  first  fraternally  admonished ;  then  the 
matter  is  to  be  brought  before  the  congregation,  in  order  that 
here  every  one  may  condemn  the  crime.  If  the  offender  does 
not  then  heed,  he  is  to  be  excommunicated,  and  treated  as  a 
heathen  and  a  publican.^  He  is  hereby  excluded  also  from  the 
outward  fellowship  of  the  congregation,  dare  not  act  as  sponsor 

'Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  364.     Jena,  iv,  362. 

*Briefe,  iv,  482.     Jena,  iv,  362  b. 

*Jena,  iv,  362  ;   cf.  362  b.  *  Jena,  iv,  362  b. 

*Erl.  Ed.,  iii,  364;  xxvii,  363  sq.  ;  xliv,  80  sq. ;  xxxi,  175  sqq. 


534  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

at  the  baptism  of  a  child,  nor  receive  the  communion.  But  this 
verdict  of  the  Church  involves,  above  all,  for  the  excommuni- 
cated person,  that  his  sin  will  now  bring  upon  him  death  and 
perdition.  He  is  deprived  of  all  the  grace  to  which  Christians 
are  entitled,  of  all  the  gifts  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not 
delivered  from  sin  and  death  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  etc.  Thus 
Luther  now  embraces  both  the  outer  and  the  inner  excommuni- 
cation '  in  the  act,  when  properly  administered  in  accordance 
with  Matt,  xviii.  This  he  designates  a  "  spiritual  "  excommuni- 
cation. The  act  of  the  Church  in  pronouncing  excommunication 
no  longer  consists  for  him  in  the  bare  outward  exclusion,  or  the 
mere  withdrawal  of  outward  fellowship,  regarded  as  only  a  sign 
that  the  soul  of  the  offender  has  been  given  over  to  the  devil ;  ''■ 
but  the  Church  itself  pronounces  upon  the  sinner  the  verdict  of 
eternal  death.  And  of  this  verdict  Luther  most  emphatically 
declares,  just  as  of  the  absolving  proclamation  of  the  loosing  key, 
that  it  is  thereby  pronounced  by  God  Himself,  and  is  valid  before 
Him.  The  binding  key  dare  no  more  than  the  other  be  con- 
sidered an  errant  key.'^  This  condemnation  is,  of  course,  as  is 
abundantly  manifest  from  other  utterances  of  Luther,  not  to  be 
construed  as  leading  absolutely  and  unconditionally  to  eternal 
death  The  sinner  is  to  continue  given  over  to  death  only  upon 
the  supposition  that  he  peisists  in  his  impenitence  instead  of 
seeking  again  deliverance  from  his  sin.  Of  this  we  shall  hereafter 
have  occasion  to  speak  further. 

But,  with  all  this  acknowledgment  of  the  Church's  authority, 
Luther  was  still  as  far  as  ever  from  making  salvation  dependent 
upon  human  mediation  or  human  caprice,  after  the  manner  of 
Koman  Catholicism.  The  verdict  spoken  of  dare  be  pronounced 
only  iipon  t/ie  ground  of  sin  and  impenitence  plainly  manifested 
by  the  sinner  himself.  To  the  declaration,  that  God  binds  Him- 
self also  to  the  verdict  of  the  Church,  Luther  adds  :  "  if  it  is 
rightly  employed  "  (that  is,  according  to  the  prescribed  method 
and  only  in  the  case  of  such  open  offenders).  Otherwise  he 
asserts,  not  that  the  binding  key  errs,  but  that  the  parties  pro- 
nouncing excommunication  do  not  at  all  have  the  right  key. 
There  remained,   therefore,  for  all   true  believers  who  suffered 

'  Vol.  I.,  pp.  277,  343.  « Vol.  I.,  p.  277. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  81  sqq.,  86  sq. ;  xxxi,  178,  169,  172 ;  xxv,  140. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  535 

injustice  at  the  hands  of  the  priests,  the  completely-consoHng 
assurance  that  their  excommunication  was  not  at  all  regarded  as 
such  by  God,  and  that  they  might  still  be  sure  of  their  absolution 
in  His  sight.'  And  even  in  the  case  of  those  rightfully  excom- 
municated, the  divine  verdict  of  death  is,  according  to  Luther's 
entire  teaching  in  regard  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  at  once  can- 
celed, whenever  the  excluded  person  again  penitently  lays  hold 
of  the  Word  of  forgiveness  as  presented  even  in  the  public 
preaching  of  the  Gospel.''' 

The  question  now  arises  very  naturally,  what  peculiar  signifi- 
cance then  actually  attaches  to  the  verdict  whose  validity  has 
been  so  strongly  asserted,  or  what  effect  does  it  actually  pjoduce  ? 
Sins  are,  in  any  event,  '•  retained  "  only  because  they  have  been 
"  bound  "  ;  but  would  they  not  be  so  bound  even  without  the 
official  declaration  of  the  Church?  Luther  himself  says  that  the 
excommunicated  sinner  "  remains  "  in  a  lost  condition.^  He  is, 
accordingly,  already  in  such  a  condition  before  the  verdict  is  pro- 
nounced against  him  by  the  Church.  Moreover,  sinners  are  said 
to  be  already  bound  through  the  ordinary  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel. They  are  even,  as  Luther  says,  bound  already  before  God 
by  their  very  sins,  and  in  consequence  of  their  refusal  to  come  to 
receive  the  Word  of  forgiveness.*  Yet  Luther  certainly  means  to 
teach  that  excommunication  produces  a  real  effect,  and  that, 
too,  with  respect  to  the  relation  of  the  individual  under  discipline 
to  God,  and  God's  attitude  toward  him.  We  may  attempt  to 
express  the  idea  of  Luther  as  follows :  The  measure  of  the  sin 
and  guilt  of  such  transgressors  becomes  in  God's  sight  entirely 
full,  and  the  verdict  of  the  hitherto  long-suffering  God  upon 
them  entirely  fixed,  only  after  they  have  cast  to  the  winds  His 
sorest  threatening  in  the  verdict  of  the  binding  key  and  His 
admonitions  presented  through  the  mouth  of  their  brethren  and 
the  congregation.  We  look  in  vain,  however,  in  the  writings  of 
Luther  himself  for  any  special  elucidation  of  the  question. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  88;    xxxi,  175  ;   xxiv,  205  sq. 

^Briefe,  iv,  4821  "In  case  the  person  bound  by  the  ban  of  the  Church 
(die  Jurisdiktion)  comes  again  through  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  to  obe- 
dience and  faith,  he  is  already  forgiven  by  God,  but  should  then  also  seek 
again  reconciliation  with  the  Church." 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  81. 

*Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  329;  iii,  170. 


53<5  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  further  of  excommunication 
as  a  public,  congregational  act  of  discipline,  in  connection  with 
the  doctrine  concerning  the  Church,  But  we  must  now,  finally, 
trace  the  significance  of  the  "  Bann,''  or  binding  thus  effected, 
to  its  appropriate  and  designed  result ;  and  it  is  only  as  we  do 
so  that  the  relation  of  the  binding  key  to  the  subjects  considered 
in  the  present  chapter  will  become  manifest.  This  ordinance 
also  is  always  designed,  in  the  special  and  gracious  purpose  of 
God  in  its  appointment,  to  lead,  and  that  in  a  i^eculiarly  startling 
and  powerful  way,  to  repentance — by  pronouncing  the  verdict  of 
death,  to  open  the  way  for  the  terrified  conscience  back  again 
to  life — to  become  a  wholesome  medicine  and  help  in  escaping 
from  sin.  We  have  found  in  absolution  a  special  exercise  and 
application  of  the  Gospel ;  the  office  of  the  binding  key  is  but  a 
prosecution  of  the  work  of  the  Law.  The  two  keys  combined  are 
" '  executores,^  executors  and  active  employers  of  the  Gospel, 
which  preaches  precisely  these  two  things,  repentance  and  the 
forgiveness  of  sins."  ' 

To  the  further  ecclesiastical  acts  which  the  Romish  Church 
designates  as  sacraments  Luther  still  denied  that  character,  and 
for  the  same  reason  which  he  had  adduced  in  the  Prae/iufiiim  de 
captivitate  Babylonicai-  Marriage  and  XSxt  priesthood  "  are  orders 
otherwise  holy  enough  in  themselves,"  but  we  dare  not  make  sacra- 
ments out  of  them.  The  former  has  already  been  discussed,''  and 
in  regard  to  ordination,  we  shall  spenk  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 
Of  the  Romish  confirmation  and  extreme  unction  the  Gospels,  he 
says,  know  nothing,  and  he  expressly  denies  the  applicability  of  Acts 
viii.  17  to  the  former.  While  regarding  it,  at  all  events,  an  excel- 
lent custom  to  visit  the  sick,  and  admonish  and  pray  with  them,  he 
would  leave  the  anointing  with  oil  optional ;  only  insisting  that 
it  be  not  regarded  as  a  sacrament.  He  thus,  at  the  first  attempted 
reformation  in  Electoral  Brandenburg,  in  which  it  was  the  aim 
to  retain  old  customs  as  far  as  possible,  gave  his  consent  to  the 
retention  of  an  anointing  of  the  sick ;  for  it  was  at  the  same 
retention  of  an  anointing  of  the  sick ;  for  it  was  at  the  same  time 
distinctly  denied  that  this  was  a  sacrament,  and  no  consciences 
were  burdened  by  it.  He  expresses  himself  in  the  same  way  at 
that  time   in   regard   to  confirmation,  which  was  there  likewise 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,    j -o,  17S  sq;    cf.  also  xi,  329. 

2  Vol.  I.,  p.  403  sqq.  '(-^f-  supra,  p.  4S1. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  537 

retained.  Yet  he  advised  against  the  recognition  of  the  custom 
of  anointing  in  the  printed  order,  since  this  professed  to  furnish 
a  reformation  based  upon  the  Scriptures.  In  regard  to  the  sup- 
posed connection  between  the  ceremony  and  Jas.  v.  14  sq.  and 
Mk.  vi.  13,  he  expressed  himself  as  heretofore.'  We  have,  with 
the  practices  last  mentioned,  entered  the  sphere  of  those  outward 
customs '''  of  which  Luther  declares,  that  they  do  not  make  any 
one  holy  and  have  not  been  appointed  by  God,  but  may  never- 
theless be  useful  and  very  appropriate.'*  Upon  one  occasion  he 
thus  allowed  feet-washing  to  pass  as  an  appropriate  and  ancient 
Christian  custom,  when  it  had  been  recognized  in  the  order  of  the 
Church  at  Sonnewald  under  a  certain  Lord  of  Minkwitz.  He 
objects  only  to  calling  it,  as  is  there  done,  a  "  soul-bath."  In 
other  connections,  he  sees  the  true  feet-washing,  which  the  Lord 
commanded,  in  the  continual  ministry  of  Christian  love  toward 
one's  brethren.* 

'  Vol.  I.,  p.  406  sq.  Upon  Confirmation:  Erl.  Ed.,  xx,  64  ;  vii,  172;  xxv, 
71  ;  Ixv,  173.  Briefe,  ii,  240,  490;  v,  307.  Upon  Unction:  Erl.  Ed., 
xxv,  71  ;  xxx,  371.      Briefe,  v,  233  sq.,  307. 

^  Vol.  I.,  p.  404. 

^Cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  378,  383  sq. 

*  Briefe,  ii,  620:  Cf.  Seckendorf,  Hist.  Luth.,  I.,  §  157,  Add.  I.  Erl. 
Ed.,  ii,  227  sq. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE    CHURCH. 

THE  COMMUNITY  OF  BELIEVERS AN   OBJECTIVE    REALITY WORD  AND 

SACRAMENTS THE     KEYS THE     MINISTRY PRAYER ENDURANCE 

OF    CROSS PIETY    OF     MEMBERS EXTERNAL     CEREMONIES FORM 

OF  PASTORAL    OFFICE THE    CHURCH    HOLY EMBRACES    BELIEVERS 

IN     ALL     PLACES PILLAR     AND     GROUND     OF     TRUTH OBJECT     OF 

FAITH RELATION    OF    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT    TO    CHURCH MAY    EN- 
COURAGE    PREACHING    OF    THE    WORD    AND    FORBID    BLASPHEMOUS 

PRACTICES SHOULD    PRESERVE    HARMONY LIMITS    OF    AUl'HORITY 

IN     THIS     SPHERE CONGREGATIONAL     CHARACTER     AND     RIGHTS 

LUTHER'S    MISSION    NOT    IN    SECULAR    ORGANIZATION. 

What  that  Church  really  is  in  which  God  dispenses  His  means 
of  grace,  and  into  which  He  gathers  His  believing  and  redeemed 
people,  had  been  already  recognized  by  Luther  with  remarkable 
clearness  at  the  time  when  he  was  repelled  and  cast  out  by  the 
Romish  hierarchy.  From  that  time  forward,  he  did  not  deviate 
in  the  least  from  his  general  conception  of  the  Church  nor  from 
the  main  outlines  of  his  doctrine  in  regard  to  it,  however  impos- 
sible it  may  be  to  overlook  certain  important  modifications  of  his 
view  upon  separate  points  as  new  practical  questions  and  neces- 
sities were  forced  upon  his  attention.' 

The  Church  is,  for  Luther,  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
COMMUNITY  (  Genieiiie)  of  the  saints  ;  and  this  means  simply  the 
community  of  believers,  who  are  sanctified  by  faith  in  Christ — 
the  assembly,  or  people  (nation),  of  Christians  who  have  Christ 
as  their  Head.  It  exists,  however,  and  can  exist,  only  where 
the  Gospel  is  preached  and  the  sacraments  rightly  administered. 
By  these,  as  by  outward  signs,  the  Christian  congregation  is 
recognized.  In  the  preaching  of  the  Word  and  in  the  celebration 
of  the  sacraments  it  acknowledges  its  relation  to  its  Lord ;  and 

'  Cf.  my  work,  "  Lutbers  Lehre  von  der  Kirche." 
(538) 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  539 

through  these  same  means  of  grace  all  the  saints  secure  the  new 
life  in  Christ  and  their  constant  strengthening  and  renewal. 
After  the  conflict  with  the  fanatical  sects,  the  sacraments  received, 
in  addition  to  the  Word,  further  and  very  special  recognition  in 
their  significance  for  the  Christian  life,  and  thus  also  for  the 
stability  and  life  of  the  Church.  But,  even  when  treating  specifi- 
cally of  the  Church,  the  principal  thing  always  remains,  for  Luther, 
the  Word  of  God,  without  which,  indeed,  the  sacraments  are 
nothing,  which  in  cases  of  necessity  brings  men,  even  without 
the  latter,  into  the  fellowship  of  salvation,  and  which  must  be 
continually  employed  and  continually  operative  in  its  divine 
power.  Through  it  the  Church  at  large  (  Gcmeine)  is  conceived, 
born,  nourished,  etc.  /^Vherever  the  Gospel  is,  there  {da)  must 
also  be  a  holy  Christian  ChurcH^ ' 

/in  the  possession  and  dispensation  of  the  means  of  grace,  the 
Church  stands  related  to  the  individual  believer  as  an  objective 
reality.  It  is  his  mother.  It  conceives,  bears  and  trains  up  an 
innumerable  host  of  children  through  the  Gospel  and  the  Holy 
Spirit^  Yet  the  Church  itself  is  always  simply  the  community 
of  existing  believers.  It  is  "  the  holy  believers,  and  the  sheep 
who  hear  their  shepherd's  voice."  The  term,  "  communion  of 
saints,"  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  simply  intended  to  declare 
what  "  the  Church "  is,  and  it  would  be  better  if  the  word 
^'GeiJieine"  (community)  were  to  stand  in  the  German  version 
instead  of  "Ge)/ieijisclia/t''  (fellowship).  It  is  just  to  this  com- 
munity of  believers  that  we  are  to  go  to  secure  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  In  this  Church,  /.  e.,  in  the  Christian  community  at  large, 
sins  are  daily  and  abundantly  forgiven.''  These  principles  define 
also  the  conception  of  individual  churches.  "  Church  means  the 
number  of  believers  in  a  city,  country,  or  the  whole  world."  * 
And  this  Church,  or  Christian  community,  is  nothing  less  exalted 
than  the  gate  of  heaven  itself.  It  is  the  place,  or  the  people 
(nation),  where  God  dwells  in  order,  through  His  Word  and  His 
sacraments,  to  lead  us  to  heaven.' 

That  the  Church,  or  Christian  community,  is  to  be  recognized 

'\ol.   I.,   pp.    295  sqq.,   364  sqq.,   427   sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxiv,  327;  vi,  67. 
Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  280.     Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  24;  xxxi,  374;  xxxv,  338,  359  sqq. 
^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  loi ;  xliv,  5.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  257,  261. 
'  Ibid.,  xxi,  162;  xxiii,  249,  254;  xxv,  142;  xxi,  13. 
*Ibid.,  xliv,  24;   xxxi,  123.  *  Op.  Ex.,  vii,  181    1S8. 


540  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

by  the  pj-eaching  of  the  Word  and  the  administratio?i  of  the  sacra- 
ments may  be  proved  yet  more  distinctly,  according  to  Luther, 
as  follows  :  It  does  not  follow,  upon  the  one  hand,  that,  because 
persons  are  by  baptism,  even  when  received  in  infancy,  regener- 
ated, sanctified,  and  admitted  to  the  community  in  which  salvation 
is  experienced,  all  the  baptized  will  always  be  members  of  that 
community.  Such  persons  cease  to  be  really  members,  and  are 
so  yet  only  in  name,  if  they  become  impenitent  sinners  and 
enemies  of  the  truth.  They  thus  inwardly  sever  themselves  from 
the  community.  They  are  not  only  branches  that  must  be  cast 
out,  but  are  already  cast  out.  They  are  no  more  members  of  the 
Church,  the  bride  of  Christ,  but  a  rebellious  whore — a  horde  of 
the  devil.'  Luther  makes  no  reference  here  to  that  return  to 
the  recognition  of  the  baptismal  covenant  which  he  regards  as 
possible  to  the  penitent ;  but  he  recognizes  also  a  falling  away 
upon  the  part  of  baptized  Christians  so  complete  as  to  leave  no 
further  hope  of  a  return.  Yet,  upon  the  other  hand,  although  not 
all  baptized  persons  really  belong  to  the  Church,  still,  he  holds, 
where  baptism  and  the  Word  are  found,  there  are  at  least  some 
"  saints,"  and  hence  certainly  a  Church.  He  points,  in  extreme 
cases,  to  the  children  yet  in  their  cradles,  and  appeals  particularly 
to  the  maxim,  that  the  Word  is  nowhere  entirely  without  fruit,  a 
maxim  which,  indeed,  when  asserted  with  such  assurance,  leads 
us  back  to  the  obscure  questions  as  to  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in 
connection  with  the  Word."  Where  the  means  of  grace  are 
entirely  wanting,  he  sees,  on  the  contrary,  no  possibility  of  a 
Church  or  of  a  fellowship  in  the  blessings  of  salvation,  and,  in 
this  sense,  approves  the  statement,  that  outside  of  the  Church 
there  is  no  salvation.* 

The  question  here  arises,  in  how  far  the  means  of  grace  are  yet 
present  in  their  power  and  blessing  where  the  Word  is  preached 
in  a  corrupted  form  and  the  sacraments  improperly  administered. 
Luther  acknowledged  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  received  effec- 
tually in  the  Church  of  the*  Middle  Ages,  despite  the  mutilation 
of  the  ordinance  of  Christ  by  the  withholding  of  the  cup  from 
the  laity.  The  Word  he  holds  to  be  still  effective  for  the  gener- 
ation  and   preservation  of   saints,  although   some  have  it   in   a 

1  Vol.  I.,  pp.  364,  367,  428.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlix,  262  sqq.,  310;  xxvi,  26;  Ixv, 
174;  i,  12.     Op.  Ex.,  XX,  165. 

2  Vol.  L,  p.  366;   Vol.  II.,  p.  491  sq.  »  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  292. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  541 

perfectly  pure,  and  others  in  a  somewhat  corrupted  form.  He 
saw  evidences  of  its  effectual  working,  by  means  of  its  central 
doctrine  of  salvation  in  Christ  alone,  in  the  case  of  particular 
individuals  even  under  the  Papacy — in  a  decisive  way,  at  least  in 
the  hour  of  death.'  He  has,  however,  left  us  no  further  defini- 
tions, or  distinctions,  as  to  the  limitations  of  the  agency  of  the 
Word  under  such  circumstances. 

Considerable  interest  attaches  also  to  the  question,  which  of 
the  external  associations  of  professed  believers  calling  themselves 
"  churches "  are  entitled  to  be  so  called.  Luther  refuses  to 
allow  the  name  of  "  Church,"  or  "  people  of  God,"  despite  the 
continued  presence  of  the  means  of  grace,  to  any  community 
which  has  become,  in  its  general,  dominant  spirit,  government 
or  confession,  perverted  from  the  truth.  Of  this  he  finds  an 
illustration  in  the  Papal  Church  (see  below).  Yet  even  in  such 
a  church  he  joyfully  recognizes  such  individuals  as  are,  through 
the  means  of  grace,  kept  in  fellowship  with  Christ,  and  thus  even 
in  a  church  which  is  only  improperly  and  falsely  so  called  he 
yet  recognizes  the  continued  presence  of  a  little  company  which 
is  not  called,  but  really  is,  a  Church.^ 

The  above  are,  according  to  Luther,  the  fundamental  elements 
which  constitute  the  Church  and  the  signs  by  which  it  is  to  be 
recognized. 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  salvation,  or  for- 
giveness, is  to  be  imparted  or  denied  in  the  Church  in  a  very 
special  way  to  individuals  through  the  specific  employment  of 
the  keys  which  have  been  entrusted  to  the  Church.  Luther, 
in  this  spirit,  further  says,  that  believers  constitute  the  Christian 
Church  because  they  have  the  sacraments  and  absolution.^  And 
in  one  of  the  finest  and  richest  of  his  expositions  of  the  signs  by 
which  the  people  of  God  are  to  be  recognized,  and  of  the  saving 
mstrumentalities  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  effects  their  sanctifi- 
cation  and  vivification,*  he  adds  to  the  Word,  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  as  a  fourth  means,  the  employment  of  the  loosing 
and  binding  keys.  They  should  be  made  use  of  wherever  the 
Church  of  Christ  exists.     That  he  does  not,  however,  include  this 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  359;   supra,  p.  270  sqq. 

'•'Erl.  Ed.,  1,  9  sqq. ;  xxvi,  28.      Op.  Ex.,  iii,  56  ;  v,  loi  sq  ,  105. 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii,  161.  *  Ibid.,  xxv,  363;  cf.  376. 


542  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

in  his  fundamental  definitions  of  the  Church,  is  to  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  this  exercise  of  the  keys  is,  for  one  thing,  already 
embraced  in  the  proper  and  complete  dispensing  of  the  Word, 
and  that  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  at  least  not  so  necessary  and 
essential  that  believers  and  saints  could  not  be  generated  and 
preserved  without  it.  Furthermore,  the  outward  discipline  ad- 
ministered through  the  binding  key  could  not,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
an  act  of  believers  themselves  and  an  enjoined  sign  of  their 
sanctification,  be  included  among  the  constituent  elements  of 
the  Church  (cf.,  on  the  contrary,  confessions  gi  the  Reformed 
Church)  ;  for  he  was  concerned,  above  all  else,  to  recognize  the 
objective  realities  which  God  bestows,  and  through  which  He 
generates  and  nourishes,  and  not  any  deed  or  service  performed 
by  man  himself. 

In  the  Christian  community  at  large,  or  Church,  these  means 
of  grace  are,  together  with  the  keys,  to  be  administered  publicly 
and  regularly  by  minisiers  {Diejier)  expressly  called  for  the  pur- 
pose, who  are  to  feed  the  congregation  with  the  "^Vord  of  God. 
The  sacraments  are  likewise,  as  we  have  seen,  by  their  very 
nature,  public  acts,  and  the  Word  of  God  requires  to  be  pro- 
claimed by  word  of  mouth,  and  hence  also  publicly  for  all.  Private 
absolution  is  proffered  to  all,  since  the  individual  does  not  find 
himself  directed  simply,  or  in  the  first  instance,  to  seek  out  a 
brother  who  may  administer  it  to  him  ;  but  the  keys,  which  have 
been  given  to  the  Church  in  its  totality,  have  also,  on  account 
of,  and  for  the  benefit  of,  the  entire  body,  specially-called 
administrants  {Diener)  to  whom  each  separate  member  of  the 
body  may  apply. 

This  brings  us  to  the  doctrine  of  the  ecclesiastical  office  (Ami). 
The  conception  of  the  "  office  "  is  here  a  narrower  one  than  that 
attaching  to  the  term  in  those  separate  passages  in  which  Luther 
calls  the  authority  and  administration  of  the  keys  which  belong 
to  every  Christian  an  office.'  It  is  a  term  indicating  public 
functions  in  general,  and  with  it  is  always  associated,  in  Luther's 
use  of  it,  the  idea  of  regular,  permanent  and  formal  appointment. 
"  Office,"  says  he,  "  means  something  appointed,  such  as  there 
must  be  in  every  orderly  administration  of  affairs  among  men,  in 
order  that  it  may  accomplish  various  appointed  and  enjoined 

iVoI.  II.,  p.  527. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  543 

tasks  in  the  name  of  Him  who  holds  the  supreme  authority,  or  in 
the  interest  of  an  entire  congregation,  that  through  it  the  other 
members  may  be  benefited.' 

That  such  special  officials,  pastors,  and  bishops  are  to  admin- 
ister the  means  of  grace,  and  to  this  end  must  be  regularly  called, 
Luther  taught  from  the  very  beginning.  He  insisted  most 
strenuously  upon  this  requirement  in  his  polemical  writings 
against  the  Fanatics,  declaring  that  no  one  should  under  any 
circumstances  presume  to  preach  publicly  who  could  not  produce 
a  mediate  call  from  God,  or — which  was  of  course  never  to  be 
looked  for — an  immediate  call  attested  by  miracles.  Thus  the 
community  of  believers  falls  for  him  into  two  sections,  preachers 
and  the  laity.'' 

If  we  now  more  closely  scrutinize  his  entire  theory  of  this  office" 
and  calling,  we  shall  observe   that,  whilst  he  now  felt  himself 
called  upon  to  emphasize  chiefly  the  authority  and  dignity  of  the 
office,  yet  //  also  remained  for  him  in  its  main  features  unchanged. 

The  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  priestly  character  of  all  Chris- 
tians, as,  in  their  baptism,  incorporated  {eirigeieidt)  in  Christ, 
the  Priest,  through  faith,  remains  unaltered,  and  includes,  indeed, 
particularly  the  right  and  authority  to  teach  the  Word  of  God. 
We  have  been  already  told  that  thus  the  keys  also  belong  to  the 
Church  at  large  and  all  its  members ;  and  it  is  even  said  that 
the  "  preaching-office  "  belongs  to  all.*  But  it  is  then  at  once 
argued  further :  But  not  all  can  preach,  but  one  must  speak  for 
the  whole  multitude.  What  would  be  the  result,  he  asks,  if  every 
one  wanted  to  talk  and  no  one  would  yield  to  his  neighbor? 
"  They  must  commit  it,"  says  he,  "  or  allow  it  to  be  committed, 
to  one  person."  "  There  must  be  one  who  conducts  the  (preach- 
ing of)  the  Word  upon  the  instructions,  and  with  the  consent,  of 
the  others,  who  yet  all,  by  their  hearing  of  the  message  preached, 
bear  testimony  to  the  Word,  and  thus  also  instruct  others.  "  For 
this  purpose,  therefore,  particular  individuals,  to  whom  God  has, 
as  Paul  says  in  Eph.  iv.  ii  sqq.,  given  special  gifts  and  adapted- 
ness  for  such  office,  should  be  selected  from  the  body  at  large. 
It  is,  indeed,  mainly  to  meet  the  requirements  of  this  olTice  that 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  ix,  219  sq.  '■'  Supra,  pp.  90  sqq.,  94. 

3  Vol.  I.,  pp.  353,  361,  415;  Vol.  II.,  p.  86.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  33;  xxxi, 
349;  xl,  172  sq. ;  xlvii,  169  sqq  ,  161. 


1/ 


544  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

the  gifts  and  powers  spoken  of  have  been  bestowed.'  And  when- 
ever such  individuals  have  been  regularly  called  out  of  the  general 
body  of  priests  for  this  particular  ministry,  they  have  already,  in 
this  their  call,  the  "  proper  ordination  "(  Weihe),  since  the  latter 
is  nothing  more  than  "  a  commandment,  commission  and  calling 
to  the  office  of  the  Christian  Church."  "  Clerical  rank  is  a  min- 
istry and  calling  of  ministers  of  the  Church"  {Ordo  est  mini- 
sterium  et  vocatio  7ninistrorum  ecclesiae) .  "  We  shall  see  how  we 
pastors  can,  on  the  ground  of  our  baptism  and  the  Word  of  God, 
be  ordained  and  confirmed  (in  our  office)  without  their  (the 
Papists')  chrism,  by  being  elected  and  called."  For  this  purpose, 
as  was  the  custom  of  the  apostles,  the  laying  on  of  hands  may 
be  employed,  in  connection  with  prayer ;  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  such  prayer  will  bear  fruit,  in  accordance  with  Matt,  xviii.  19. 
The  laying  on  of  hands  serves  also  to  publicly  ratify  and  attest  the 
union  between  the  pastor,  or  bishop,  and  his  Church — that  they 
will  listen  to  him  and  that  he  will  teach  them — as  a  notary  public 
attests  secular  matters,  or  as  a  pastor,  in  solemnizing  a  marriage, 
thereby  ratifies,  or  attests,  the  union  of  the  parties  concerned.' 
If,  at  any  time  thereafter,  one  so  called  shall  cease  to  preach  and 
exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry,  he  takes  his  place  again  in  the 
common  ranks  and  is  nothing  more  than  any  ordinary  Christian.^ 
Of  the  particular  forms  to  be  observed  in  the  calling  of  men 
to  this  office,  and  of  the  persons  properly  authorized  to  represent 
the  entire  body  of  the  Church  in  the  transaction,  we  shall  here- 
after have  occasion  to  speak.  At  this  point  we  stop  only  to 
remark,  that  the  calling  mediated  through  governments,  princes, 
cities,  etc.,  is  regarded  by  Luther  just  as  truly  a  proper  calling 
as  that  of  the  first  bishops  by  the  apostles,  and  of  modern 
bishops  by  their  predecessors.  The  Church  is  "  not  at  all  bound 
to  a  regular  succession  of  bishops,  as  claimed  by  the  Papacy," 
He  admonishes  the  person  receiving  such  a  call :  "  Thou  shalt 
consider  the  voice  of  the  community  ^^rcipublicae)  the  voice  of 
God  and  shalt  obey."  * 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xl,  170  sq.,  174;  xlvii,  161 ;  xvii,  250,  241 ;  xv,  364  sq. ;  ix,  220. 

2  Vol.  T.,  pp.  361,  373,  405  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  348,  356  sq.,  359.  Jena,  i, 
578  h.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  174;  vi,  9;  xxvi,  105.  Upon  the  form  of  ordination, 
Tischr.,  ii,  383  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiv,  290  sqq. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xi,  171  sq. 

*Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  30  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xii,49;  xxxi,  356.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  114. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  545 

The  ofifice  of  the  ministry,  however,  though  having  the  basis 
and  origin  indicated,  has  been  instituted  by  God  Himself.  \\'ho- 
ever  has  been  inducted  into  it  in  the  manner  described  must  be 
regarded  as  one  whom  God  Himself  has  called  and  consecrated. 
The  rank,  or  order  ("6"/^;/^"),  which  "  has  the  ministry  of  the 
Word  and  of  the  sacraments,"  or  (as  Luther,  adopting  the  tradi- 
tional term,  calls  it)  the  "  spiritual  rank,"  has  been  established 
and  instituted  by  God.'  Luther  so  maintains,  even  when  explain- 
ing the  nature  and  basis  of  the  ofifice  by  means  of  the  logical 
deduction  of  its  necessity  to  which  we  have  above  referred.  We 
may,  however,  in  accordance  with  all  the  preceding,  summarize 
his  entire  view  in  regard  to  this  divine  institution  in  the  following 
particulars  :  The  Word,  together  with  the  sacraments,  has  been 
bestowed  upon  and  committed  to  the  Church  by  God  and  Christ. 
It  is  the  gracious  will  and  the  requirement  of  God  that  the  latter, 
and  particularly  also  the  Word,  be  publicly  employed.'^  Preachers 
are  needed,  through  whom  the  divine  Word  may  be  proclaimed 
everywhere  and  constantly,  may  reach  posterity,  and  may,  espe- 
cially, be  presented  to  the  minds  of  uninstructed  youth  and  the 
common  people.^  To  this  end,  the  very  nature  of  the  case  abso- 
lutely requires,  in  order  that  all  things  may  be  done  in  becoming 
order,'*  and  the  work  of  God  not  come  to  nought  in  the  midst  of 
disgraceful  confusion,  that  there  be  distinct  individuals  to  attend 
to  the  public  preaching  of  the  Word,  etc.  In  order  that  we  may 
have  such,  God  Himself  endows  some  men  with  peculiar  talent 
for  such  work  and  points  them  out  to  us  as  suitable  persons  to 
undertake  it.  Thus  Christ  Himself  sent  out  His  first  great 
preachers,  the  inspired  apostles,  and  they,  in  accordance  with 
the  divine  will,  appointed  others  to  the  preaching  ofifice.  Thus, 
also,  is  this  ofifice  always  to  continue  in  the  congregation.  Such 
persons,  therefore,  as  are  called  by  the  Church,  upon  her  recogni- 
tion of  the  divine  will  and  the  divine  gifts,  are  really  appointed  by 
God.  It  was  only  in  his  later  writings  that  Luther  so  strenuously 
maintained  that  such  persons  should  therefore  be  received  as  the 
called  of  God,  although  he  then  still  explained  the  mediation  of 
the  divine  through  the  human  calling  in  the  same  way  as  before. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  219;  xl,  17 1  ;  xxv,  346;   ix,  220;  xx.  8  sq. 

2  In  regard  to  the  Word,  cf.  supra,  pp.  242,  494. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  224.  *  i  Cor.  xiv.  40.      Erl.  Ed.,  xii,  346. 

35 


546  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

We  find  special  emphasis  laid  also  in  the  later,  as  compared  with 
the  earlier,  utterances  of  Luther  upon  the  gifts,  or  talents,  by  the 
bestowal  of  which  God  Himself  provides  for  the  congregation,  or 
those  who  control  its  affairs,  men  properly  endowed.  Thus,  for 
example,  he  acknowledges  the  evangelical  preachers  of  Erfurt  as 
real  ministers  of  Christ  Himself,  and  the  Church  at  that  place  as 
a  properly-constituted  one,  because  the  former  have  been  called  by 
the  council  and  are  learned  and  highly  gifted  men,  anointed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit.'  He  always  insisted,  moreover,  that  men  rightly 
called,  even  though  lacking  the  proper  spirit,  should  be  recog- 
nized as  regular  ministers  on  account  of  the  call  which  they  have 
received  and  the  divine  means  of  grace  which  they  administer. 
"  Let  him  be  what  e  may  and  such  as  he  can  be.  Since  he  is 
in  office,  and  is  tolerated  by  the  majority,  do  thou,  too,  be  con- 
tent. His  personality  does  not  make  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
sacraments  either  worse  or  better  for  thee ;  for  what  he  says  and 
does  is  not  anything  of  his  own,  but  Christ  says  and  does  it  all, 
in  so  far  as  he  continues  to  rightly  teach  and  perform  his  official 
acts — although,  of  course,  the  Church  should  not  tolerate  open 
vices.  But  do  thou  thyself  be  satisfied,  and  let  the  matter  go, 
since  thou  alone  canst  not  be  the  whole  multitude."  '^  ly 

The  special  blessing  of  God  accompanies,  in  Luther's  view,  the 
exercise  of  the  preaching-office  by  men  properly  called  to  it ;  for 
in  the  possession  and  certainty  of  their  divine  calling  they  are 
able  to  achieve  large  results,  whereas  those  who  force  themselves 
into  such  positions  in  a  disorderly  way  and  against  the  will  of 
God,  as  intruders  and  leaders  of  factions,  must  lack,  in  their 
undertakings,  the  grace  of  God  and  the  success  that  comes  from 
Him.  "Although  they  proclaim  some  salutary  things,  yet  they 
do  not  edify."  ^  Even  the  reading  of  the  divine  Word  in  private 
is,  as  we  have  heard,  not  so  productive  of  results  as  the  Word 
upon  the  lips  of  the  public  and  specially  authorized  preacher,* 
The  charge  was  brought  against  this  teaching  of  Luther  by  those 
who  despised  the  preaching-office,  that  its  advocates  "  would 
^  thus  establish  again  a  spiritual  tyranny  over  the  Church,  and 
place  themselves  in  seats  of  authority  and  power,  as  the  Pope 
formerly  did."     In  response  to  this,  he  confesses  that  he  is  him- 

1  Briefe,  vi,  181  sq.,  180.  ^Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  366. 

^Op.  Ex.,  xvi,  I99sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  viii,  300;  xv,  4,  9.     Comin.  ad  Gal.,  I,  34. 

*  Vol.  II.,  494.      Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  401. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  547 

self  afraid  that  such  may  be  the  case  ;  but,  he  adds,  the  beginning 
of  such  a  calamity  will  be  seen  in  the  despising  and  banishment 
of  true  preachers  of  the  Word,  which  may  lead  God  in  His  anger 
to  raise  up  veritable  tyrants.' 

Thus,  in  the  passage  in  which  Luther  speaks  of  the  three  means 
of  grace  and  of  the  keys  as  the  fourth,  he  proceeds  to  say,  that 
the  Church  may  be  known,  in  the  fifth  place,  by  the  fact  that  it 
ordains,  or  calls,  ministers  {Kircheudienef)  and  has  offices  to  fill.'' 
He  even,  in  one  passage,  defines  the  Church  as  the  "  the  whole 
multitude  {Hai/fen)  of  the  baptized  ana  believing  who  belong  to 
a  pastor  or  bishop."  ^  He  insists  particularly,  also,  that  the 
pastors  or  bishops  already  in  office  shall  participate  in  the  induc- 
tion of  every  new  candidate  into  the  ministry.  As  publicly  and 
regularly  appointed  witnesses  of  the  divine  A\'ord  they  are  thus 
especially  to  approve  the  doctrine  of  the  candidate  so  ordained, 
to  receive  him  into  their  fellowship,  and  to  confirm  his  appoint- 
ment by  the  laying  on  of  hands.* 

Yet  the  pastor  is,  for  Luther,  never  anything  more  than  the  pi/dlic 
administrant  of  that  which  belongs  to  the  entire  congregation, 
appointed  by  the  congregation  and  ordained  of  God.  It  is  only 
by  a  misuse  of  language  that  he  is  called  a  priest,  by  which  term, 
when  used,  we  should  understand,  in  accordance  with  the  original 
meaning  of  the  word,  not  what  is  now  meant  by  a  priest,  but  an 
"  elder  "  {■n-pEapwepoi)  J"  He  exercises  spiritual  authority  publicly 
and  officially — not  in  outward  dominion,  of  which  there  should 
be  nothing  in  the  Church,  but  in  administering  the  Word  and 
through  it  nourishing  the  flock.  He  administers  the  keys,  but 
they  have  to  do  with  spiritual  loosing  and  binding,  and  should 
never  presume  to  establish  commandments  and  prohibitions.  He 
rules,  but  only  through  preaching,  admonition  and  oversight  exer- 
cised by  means  of  the  Word.  Thus  he  is  a  bishop,  or  overseer, 
watchman,  etc.,  and  still,  at  the  same  time,  a  servant,  and  his 
power  a  ministry." 

1  Ell.  Ed.,  xliii,  281.  '  Ibid.,  xxv,  364. 

^  Ibid.,  xxi,  123. 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  88.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  105.     Briefe,  vi,  iSo,  182. 

^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  362,  425  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  350;  xl,  170. 

^  Vol.  I.,  pp.  304  sq.,  425.  Vol.  II.,  476.  Erl.  Ed.,  xliv,  3  sqq.,  13 ;  xxxi, 
127  sqq.,  156  sqq.;  xxi,  438;  xxxviii,  434;  vi,  377  sqq.  Church  "govern- 
ment" an-d  spiritual  power  here  become  synonomous  terms  with  Luther ;  even 


54^  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

Luther  habitually  represents  the  pastor  as  exercising  his  office 
for  the  sake  of  the  congregation,  upon  commission  from  it,  and 
in  its  name.  Of  the  preacher  who  is  offensive  to  his  parishioners, 
it  is  said,  that  "  the  people  tolerate  "  him.  The  priest,  errone- 
ously so  called,  is,  upon  Luther's  theory,  not  only  a  servant  of 
Christ,  but  also  "  a  servant  of  all  the  others  "  from  whose  midst 
he  has  been  chosen.  The  listening  congregation  is  even  said,  as 
we  have  seen,  itself  to  teach  to  a  certain  extent  with  him ;  and 
even  when  speaking  of  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or 
the  "  proper  mass,"  Luther  declares  :  We  do  not  allow  him  to 
utter  the  appointed  words  by  himself,  as  though  for  his  own 
person,  but  he  is  mouth  for  all  of  us,  and  we  all  utter  them  from 
the  heart  with  him,  etc'  It  is  manifest  from  what  has  been 
previously  said  that  the  position  just  stated  is  in  entire  harmony 
with  the  principle,  asserted  with  equal  positiveness,  that  the 
pastor  acts  as  a  servant  of  Christ,  under  divine  commission,  and 
even  in  the  Lord's  stead.  His  peculiar  functions  are,  above  all 
else,  the  handling  of  the  Word  and  the  dispensing  of  the  sacra- 
ments directly  appointed  by  Christ,  who  Himself  works  in  these, 
even  when  administered  by  unworthy  men.  That  he,  the  ap- 
pointed pastor,  is  to  employ  the  Word  and  sacraments,  must,  in 
view  of  the  call  which  he  has  received,  be  firmly  maintained  as 
the  divine  will  and  appointment ;  and  this  the  congregation  is 
now  also  in  duty  bound  to  acknowledge.  Referring  at  once  to 
the  divine  institution  of  the  means  of  grace  and  the  divine 
authorization  of  those  who  are  to  administer  and  dispense  them, 
Luther  says  :  They,  the  preachers,  are  to  proffer  these— for  the 
sake  and  in  the  name  of  the  Church— /->///,  much  rather,  by  virtue 
of  Christ's  institutioni-  Thus,  the  office  of  the  ministry  and  its 
regular  occupants  are  not  to  be  left  subject  to  every  whim  or 
wanton  exercise  of  power  upon  the  part  of  the  congregation  or 
rulers.  The  latter  are  not  lords  over  pastors  and  their  office, 
and,  especially,  dare  not  attempt  to  shield  themselves  from  the 
rebukes  which  these  are  divinely  authorized  to  administer.^ 

when  he  discriminates  between  governing  power  and  the  power  of  the  keys 
(supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  368.  Eri.  Ed.,  xxi,  2S7),  the  former  is  credited  with  only 
general  spirittial  functions. 

^Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  369;  xl,  171  sq.  ;  xxv,  364;  xvii,  250;  xxxi,  350,  371. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  364. 

^  Cf.  also,  especially,  Briefe,  v,  535  sqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  549 

Yet  congregations  and  individual  believers  are,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  under  obligation  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  those 
who  bear  this  exalted  office,  if  the  latter  attempt  to  force  upon 
them  doctrines  or  commandments  of  their  own,  instead  of  the 
A\'ord  of  God  alone.  The  public  endorsement  or  condemnation 
of  doctrines  and  spirits  is,  indeed — in  the  sense  above  explained — 
the  province  of  the  preaching-office.  But  yet,  at  the  same  time, 
the  private  members  of  the  congregation  may  and  should  form 
their  own  judgment  in  regard  to  the  truth,  upon  the  basis  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  are  themselves  plain  to  the  understanding  of  all. 

They  not  only,  therefore,  have  the  right,  but  it  is  their  solemn 
duty,  to  forsake  false  shepherds  and  teachers.  The  declarations 
of  Christ :  "  Whoso  despiseth  you  despiseth  me,"  and  "  Whoso 
heareth  you  heareth  me,"  apply  only  to  those  preachers  who 
really  teach  the  Word  of  God  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures. 
In  fact,  these  very  words  of  Christ,  interpreted  according  to  their 
true  intent,  compel  us  to  refuse  to  listen  to  the  doctrines  of  men. 
It  is  possible,  moreover,  for  even  the  body  of  assembled  bishops 
to  err  and  forsake  the  truth,,  just  aS'  it  is  for  any  other  public  or 
private  persons.  Even  the  great  mass  of  Christians  in  the  world 
may,  with  their  leaders,  fall  away.'  Luther,  accordingly,  always 
fully  justified  the  course  of  those  separate  congregations  which, 
without  the  sanction  of  their  former  priests  and  with  an  open 
declaration  of  their  independence  of  the  latter,  followed  their 
own  convictions  in  espousing  the  cause  of  the  pure  Gospel,  and 
called  new  ministers:  upon  their  own  authority ;  and  he  always 
recognized  the  calls  thus  extended  as  perfectly  valid.  Luther 
maintained,  further,  that  laymen  should  be  associated  with  the 
clergy,  in  a  regular  way  and  according  to  standing  regulations, 
in  passing  judgment  upon  matters  of  faith  referred  to  councils. 
In  the  organization  of  the  latter  there  should  be  included  a 
number  of  inteUigent,  true-hearted  men  of  secular  calUngs,  for 
they  also  have  an  inteiest  in  the  matters  to  be  considered.  To 
the  theologian,  Marbach,  to  the  correctness'  of  whose  doctrinal 
view  he  afterwards  bore  testimony,  he  assigned,  as  the  topic  for 
his  disputation  preparatory  to  the  reception  of  the  doctor's 
degree    (A.  D.    1543),  the    question:     "Whether    in    a    synod 

'  Vol.  I.,  pp.  505  sqq  ,  261  sq.  Briefe,  v,  535.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxviii,  336;  xxv, 
366.     Jena,  i,  552  b;  Vol.  I.,  p.  506. 


5 so  THE    THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

[Synflde)  the  bishops  alone  have  the  decisive  suffrage  in  deter- 
mining dogmas."  The  conclusion  was  :  "  Therefore,  since  it  is 
the  supreme  decision  of  the  Church,  which  consists  of  doctors 
and  the  rest  of  the  community  i^coetii),  it  is  necessary  that  judges 
be  selected  from  both  parties.'"  Excommunication,  we  have  been 
already  told,  should  not  be  administered  except  with  the  co- 
operation of  the  congregation  and  with  its  endorsement.  The 
latter  is  not  to  be  a  handmaiden,  but  an  associate  judge  and 
bosom-companion  (wife).^ 

In  addition  to  the  public  administration  of  the  Word  and  the 
keys  thus  provided  for,  there  remains,  finally,  for  every  member 
of  the  congregation,  by  virtue  of  his  priestly  office,  the  authority 
and  duty  of  instiucting,  comforting,  or  admonishing  his  neighbor 
through  the  Word  of  God,  as  necessity  may  require.  Thus 
fathers  and  mothers  are  to  teach  their  children  and  their  servants, 
and  brothers,  neighbors,  fellow-citizens,  etc.,  one  another.  We 
recall  what  has  been  said  in  regard  to  absolution  received  at  the 
hand  of  a  brother.  Of  this  private,  personal  announcement  of 
the  Word,  as  for  its  public  proclamation,  it  is  said  :  "  I  hear  only 
the  voice  of  the  pastor,  or  of  my  brother  or  father ;  but  if  I  were 
to  conclude,  further,  that  the  works  of  my  father  or  pastor  were 
not  his,  but  the  words  of  our  God  Himself,  I  would  judge  rightly."  ^ 

Luther  thus  assigns  to  the  regularly-constituted  office  of  the 
ministry  a  place  by  the  side  of  the  means  of  grace  which  are 
granted  to  the  Church,  and  in  the  use  of  which  her  life  is  perpe- 
tuated. But  he  assigns  to  it  such  a  position  only  as  a  service 
rendered  in  their  administration,  whereas  the  spirit  of  life  is  not 
in  it,  but  in  the  means  of  grace  themselves.  And,  however  ear- 
nestly the  constitution  of  the  office  by  the  congregation  and  the 
cherishing  of  a  proper  respect  for  it  are  insisted  upon,  it  is  still, 
according  to  Luther,  possible  for  souls  to  be  incorporated  into 
Christ  and  the  common  body  of  His  saints  merely  through  the 
private  use  of  the  Word.  Where  the  public  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  is  entirely  prohibited,  as  among  the  Turks  and  heathen 
and  even  under  papal  tyrants,  there  this  private  use  of  the  Word 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  350  sq.,  346.  Seckendorf,  Hist.  Luth.,  Ill,  §  112.  Briefe, 
"V.  543- 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  177. 

^  Ibid.,  xl,  172  sq.;  xvii,  241.  Briefe,  iv,  674;  v,  38  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xlvii, 
221.     Supra,  p.  527. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  55  I 

is  sufficient  for  all  essential  purposes.  Even  in  such  places  the 
Christian  Church  truly  exists.  When  the  regular  office  of  the 
ministry  has  disappeared  through  the  apostasy  of  its  incumbents, 
the  Church,  or  Christian  community,  has  not  therefore  perished, 
but  can  and  should  constitute  the  office  anew  by  summoning 
men  from  its  own  membership  to  the  ministry.  It  is  manifest 
from  all  the  foregoing  why  Luther,  despite  his  high  estimate  for 
the  office  in  question,  never  included,  nor  could  include,  it  with 
the  Word  in  his  ordinary  utterances  concerning  the  fundamental 
fiature  of  the  Church. 

In  the  comprehensive  enumeration  of  the  signs  of  the  Church 
(by  which  it  is  recognized)  which  we  have  been  following,  we 
find  mentioned,  as  the  sixth  and  seventh,  prayer  and  the  holy 
cross,  which  must  be  laid  particularly  upon  the  true  Church  in 
consequence  of  the  hatred  of  the  world,  and  whose  divine  pur- 
pose is  to  lead  the  latter  to  cling  firmly  to  Christ  and  the  Word 
of  God.' 

Thus  we  have  "  seven  redemptive  agencies  "  {Hciltliiimer : 
sanctities),  or  "  the  proper  seven  -principal  parts  of  the  exalted 
redemptive  agency "  (^Heilfhitin)  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
accomplishes  the  daily  sanctification  and  vivification  of  believers. 
Luther  would  even  like  to  call  them  the  seven  sacraments,'^  if  that 
word  had  not  been  so  misused  by  the  Papists,  besides  being 
otherwise  employed  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  sanctification  which  God  thus  effects  in  His  people  must 
now  also  bear  fruit  in  their  lives,  by  means  of  which  the  character 
of  His  saints  becomes  manifest.  Hence  all  the  fruits  displayed 
in  the  moral  life  ^believers  are  further  external  signs  by  which 
the  Church  may  be  known.^  But,  adds  Luther,  they  are  not  as 
reliable  as  those  previously  mentioned;  for  such  works  are  often 
performed  likewise,  and  that  with  an  appearance  of  greater 
sanctity  than  among  Christians,  by  the  heathen,  although  they 
are  then  not  done  sincerely  from  the  heart  and  for  God's  sake, 
but  with  some  other  object  in  view.  And,  not  only  in  their  signifi- 
cance as  signs,  but  also  in  their  relation  to  the  perpetuity  and 
character  of  the  Church  itself,  Luther  always  expressly  subordi- 
nates them  to  the  pure  preaching  of  the  Word,  or  to  pure  doctrine, 
which  alone  can  produce  an  amendment  of  the  life,  and  whose 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  374  sqq.  ^  Vol.  I.,  p.  403  sq. 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  376  sqq.  ;  vi,  67  ;  1,  40. 


552  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

corruption  contaminates  the  whole  multitude,  whereas  the  corrupt 
life  of  the  individual  injures  commonly  only  himself.'  The 
necessity  for  such  a  constant  insistence  upon  the  diligent  use  of 
the  objective,  beatifying  and  sanctifying  Word  arises  inevitably 
from  Luther's  entire  conception  of  salvation  and  the  Christian 
life.  At  the  same  time,  there  remains,  it  is  true,  some  ground  for 
the  question  upon  our  part,  whether  this  general  position  of  Luther 
really  of  necessity  involves  such  an  exaltation  of  the  doctrine 
expressed  in  fixed  formulas  as  we  find  in  his  writings,  and  whether 
— as  Luther  recognizes  a  reacting  influence  exerted  by  the  moral 
deportment  of  the  individual  upon  his  inner  spiritual  apprehen- 
sions— he  might  and  should  not  have  recognized,  also,  a  retro- 
active influence  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  congregation  upon 
its  inner  apprehension  of  the  truth  and  upon  the  effective  procla- 
mation of  the  living  Word  within  its  bounds.'- 

Besides  these  saving  instrumentalities,  which  are  cherished  in 
the  Church  as  divine  institutions,  and  which  are  regarded  as 
effectual  through  the  accompanying  power  of  the  Spirit,  there  are, 
still  further,  various  external  cicstoms,  or  modes  of  administration, 
which  have  no  sanctifying  power,  and  have  not  been  commanded 
or  instituted  by  God,  but  which  "  are  outwardly  necessary  or 
useful,  are  proper  and  becoming,  and  which  produce  an  orderly 
discipline  and  church  economy"  (i  Cor.  xiv.  40).  They  are 
the  orderly  and  appropriate  forms  in  which  the  dispensing  and 
administration  of  the  means  of  grace  in  the  congregation,  prayer, 
etc.,  are  to  be  clothed.  They  embrace  chiefly  such  matters  as 
the  appointed  order  of  divine  worship,  the  celebration  of  particular 
days  and  hours,  the  use  of  altars,  priestly  vestments,  etc.,  and 
further,  for  example,  the  observance  of  fasting,  as  a  religious 
ceremony,  by  the  congregation  at  large.  We  have  here  no 
longer  to  do  with  matters  appointed  by  God,  but  with  human 
arrangement,  precept  or  tradition.  In  regard  to  all  things  of 
this  kind,  Luther's  unvarying  testimony  is,  that  they  are  not  to 
be  again  exalted  to  the  position  of  essential  matters,  nor  regarded 
as  binding  upon  the  conscience.  He  expresses  himself  with 
great  discrimination  as  follows  :  To  the  work  which  God  ordains 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  375;  xvii,  35.  (Thus  already  in  A.  D.  1523;  cf,  also 
Eoscher,  i,  225,  231.  Supra,  Vol.  I.,  p.  205  sq.,  before  A.  D.  1517)  ;  xliv,  95  j 
xvi,  100  sq.  ;   xxxiv,  241,  35  I. 

^  Cf.,  upon  this  doctrine,  also  our  remarks,  supra,  p.  429. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  553 

— preaching,  prayer,  the  discipline  of  the  flesh — tradition  dare 
not  append  a  new  compulsory  work.  Its  province,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  merely  to  lay  hold  of  the  work  divinely  prescribed,  and 
to  presuppose,  as  it  were,  the  appointment  of  the  essential  thing 
in  question,  which  it  then  solemnizes,  as  they  say,  and  invests 
with  quantity,  quality,  the  where,  the  when,  and  the  special  end 
in  any    case.     For    example,   the    giving   of    thanks  is    a  work 

*  *  *  of  divine  precept,  but  becomes  also  a  work  of  tra- 
dition when  the  latter  dictates:  We  wish  it  to  be  performed  at 
such  an  hour,  in  such  a  place,  in  such  a  posture.  But  these 
appointments  of  accidental  matters  in  his  works  God  wishes  to 
be  free  and  truly  "  accidentia.'''  '  We  recall  our  earlier  notice 
of  the  toleration  of  "  tradition  "  in  this  sense.^  He  habitually 
represents  even  the  observance  of  Sunday  in  this  light.^ 

Nor  is  it  the  province  of  the  pastor  or  bishop  to  appoint  such 
customs  and  methods,  but  that  of  the  Church,  i.  <?.,  the  whole  body 
of  baptized  and  believing  persons  belonging  to  the  pastor  or 
bishop.  The  pastor  may  exhort  the  Church  to  approve  fasts, 
prayers,  festivals,  etc.,  but  he  dare  impose  no  ceremonies — 
"  unless  by  the  consent  of  the  Church,  either  expressed  or  tacit.  "  * 
Individual  believers  should  submit  to  wholesome  ordinances. 
"  Yet  if  any  one  be  sometimes  unable,  on  account  of  distress, 
sickness,  hindrances  of  various  kinds,  to  observe  such  ordinances, 
it  must  not  be  accounted  a  sin."  Such  ordinances  may  be  also 
omitted  without  sin,  unless,  indeed,  the  omission  should  give 
offence  to  the  weak.^  The  conception  of  the  "  spiritual  power," 
or  that  of  the  keys  themselves,  Luther  never  applied  to  the 
arrangement  of  such  forms. 

Just  in  view,  however,  of  the  liberty  which  we  enjoy  in  regard 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  XXV,  383  sqq.,  393  sqq.     Briefe,  iv,  122,  125.        ''Vol.  I.,  p.  502. 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  207,  358;  II.,  p.  38  sqq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  48  sqq. ;  xxiii,  52;  xxv, 
275;.xvii,  247  sqq.  Although  Luther  declares  in  a  passage  ah  eady  cited  (supra, 
p.  343)  that  the  Seventh  day  was  hallowed  in  Paradise,  he  still  says  (Erl.  Ed., 
xxxi,  443,  A.  D.  1538),  that  "  Moses  now  names  the  seventh  day  (in  the  Third 
Commandment),  and  the  injunction  to  do  no  work  on  that  day  because  God 
created  the  world  in  six  days  is  the  temporary  dress  in  which  Moses  clothes 
this  commandment  for  his  people  particularly  for  that  time;  for  previously  we 
find  nothing  of  this  kind  recorded  either  of  Abraham  or  of  the  times  of  the 
patriarchs."     Cf.  further,  supra,  p.  39  sq. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  123  sq.      Briefe,  iv,  106. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  340  sq.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  ii,  167. 


554  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

to  ceremonies,  Luther  would  have  those  who  are  inwardly  free 
and  strong  display  the  greatest  possible  consideration  for  the  weak 
and  simple-minded  in  the  transformation  of  ancient  customs. 
No  offence  should  be  given  them  in  their  weakness,  and  the  new 
measure  should  be  made  specially  helpful  in  furnishing  to  such 
the  stimulus,  instruction  and  discipline  which  they  may  particu- 
larly need.'  But,  beyond  this,  not  only  should  no  further  attention 
be  paid  to  the  opposition  of  members  of  the  congregation  hope- 
lessly attached  to  papal  customs,  but  the  wanton  insiihordinatioti 
of  reckless  characters,  who  never  will  agree  to  anything  of  a 
general  nature  or  for  the  common  interest,  should  be  restrained, 
in  order  that  the  new  measure  may  find  general  acceptance.  In 
the  same  connection,  Luther  warns  also  against  too  many  and 
needless  differences  in  the  customs  of  the  various  individual 
churches.-  But  he  always  lays  by  far  the  greatest  stress  upon 
his  testimony  against  every  aficient  or  tnodern  attempt  at  compul- 
sion, against  all  legality  in  matters  of  this  kind,  and  ail  passion 
for  conformity.  He  will  never  hear  of  the  compromise,  suggested 
in  the  interest  of  church  unity,  whose  advocates  sought  to  inter- 
pret the  customs  of  the  Romish  Church  in  as  unobjectionable 
way  as  possible,  and  appealed  to  the  duty  of  Christian  love.  He 
says:  "It  will  not  do  {nihil  est)  to  boast  of  love  in  order  to 
attack  liberty.  If  the  devil  crowds  in  a  finger,  he  will  overturn 
everything."  Even  when  presenting  the  liturgy  which  he  him- 
self prepared  especially  for  Wittenberg,  he  expressly  disowned 
all  intention  of  urging  it  upon  other  churches.  He  advises 
against  the  holding  of  an  evangelical  council  for  the  establish- 
ment of  common  forms  for  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation, 
because  he  foresees  the  danger  of  awakening  a  new  zeal  for  human 
ordinances,  and  because  he  regarded  the  true  unity  of  the  Church 
as  already  sufficiently  guarded  in  the  faith  of  the  divine  ^^'ord. 
He  declares :  "  Necessity  itself  requires  that  ceremonies  be 
diverse."  If  there  but  remain  unity  of  doctrine,  harmony  may 
easily  be  attained  in  the  midst  of  such  diversity,  just  as  in  music 
different  voices  beautifully  blend.  He  would,  further,  allow  the 
new  liturgies,  before  being  published  in  the  form  of  statutes,  to 
be  first  developed  in  actual  practice,  and  as  though  spontaneously, 

'  Vol.  I.,  pp.  418,  464.     Vol.  TI.,  p.  34. 

2  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  9.     Briefe,  iii,  353;  iv,  2S2. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  555 

in  the  separate  localities.  They  should  then  be  published,  not 
as  strict  requirements,  but  as  matters  of  historical  record.  Their 
liability  to  change  should  always  be  acknowledged,  and  further 
future  revisions  be  constantly  kept  in  view.'  The  whole  matter 
of  ceremonial  agitation  is  so  distasteful  to  him,  that,  when  asked 
by  the  prince  of  Anhalt  for  advice  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical  cus- 
toms, he  bluntly  declares  (A.  D.  1545)  :  "I  am  impatient  of 
even  necessary  ceremonies,  but  hostile  to  those  which  are  not 
necessary ;  for  it  is  easy  for  ceremonies  to  grow  into  laws,  and, 
once  established  as  laws,  they  soon  become  snares  for  the  con- 
science." ^  The  motives,  finally,  by  which  Luther  was  controlled, 
in  changing  or  leaving  unchanged  the  traditional  forms  of  the 
Church,  were  still  of  the  same  nature  as  those  which  had  guided 
him  in  his  earlier  years.  The  natural  conservatism  which  was 
thus  manifested  was  reinforced  after  the  Carlstadt  controversy  by 
his  abhorrence  of  the  new  legal,  and  at  the  same  time  disorderly, 
spirit  then  evoked,  which  made  necessary  requirements  again  out 
of  optional  matters,  and,  still  further,  by  his  dread  of  the  opening 
of  needless  questions  among  the  rude  populace,  which  might 
easily  become  the  means  of  leading  them  to  despise  the  Word 
itself.  Yet  we  have  already  seen  ^  how  he  proceeded  at  a  later 
date,  e.  g.,  in  abolishing  the  elevation  of  the  host,  when  there 
seemed  to  be  no  further  occasion  for  such  precautionary  delay. 
He  always  kept  in  view,  moreover,  as  the  class  to  whom  chiefly 
forms  are  to  be  adapted,  not  eminent  Christians,  but  the  young 
of  the  Church.  He  says  in  the  German  Mass,  which  appeared 
in  1526,  that  if  we  had  an  assemblage  of  only  such  as  earnestly 
desired  to  be  Christians,  we  would  there  have  no  need  of  "  much 
and  great  singing,''  and  would  require  only  a  short  and  suitable 
form  in  administering  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The 
liturgy  which  he  now  himself  ofifers  is  designed,  he  says,  for  plain 
people,  some  of  whom  are  not  yet  Christians,  but  of  whom  the 
greater  number  only  stand  and  gape  after  something  new,  and 
who  must  have  in  divine  service,  first  of  all,  some  public  incite- 
ment toward  Christian  living.     He  later  says,  in  the  same  spirit, 

'  Briefe,  iii,  197  ;  v,  260  sqq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  227.  Briefe,  ii,  563  ;  iv,  600  ; 
V,  539.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  9.  Briefe,  vi,  81 ;  iv,  528,  106.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi, 
124. 

2  Briefe,  vi,  379.  '  Supra,  p.  184. 


556  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

that  Christians  of  the  right  kind  need  no  pulpit,  altar,  etc.,  but 
that  we  should  follow  the  established  order,  with  certain  places, 
hours,  etc.,  for  the  sake  of  the  children  and  the  plain  multitude.' 
"  Some  ceremonies  are  useful  to  the  multitude  in  arousing  their 
dull  souls."  '  In  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  present  form  of 
divine  worship  to  that  of  the  apostles,  we  have  already^  heard 
him  declare,  that  the  mode  pursued  by  the  latter  would  not  be 
possible  with  the  present  arrangement  of  congregations  and 
pastors,  and  was  not  made  obligatory  by  the  apostles  themselves. 
Under  this  same  point  of  view — as  in  itself  optional,  yet  useful, 
salutary,  and  demanded  by  a  due  regard  for  order  and  discipline — 
we  must,  with  Luther,  include  also  the  particular  concrete  form 
of  the  one  preaching,  or  pastoral,  office.  All  who  hold  this  ofifice 
have  in  equal  measure  the  commission  and  ministerial  calling  to 
rule  through  the  Word ;  and  the  Scriptures  understand  by  bishops 
nothing  more  than  presbyters.  But,  just  as  they  differ  from  one 
another  in  natural  endowments,  so  may  and  should  also  some  be 
placed  over  others  by  human  appointment  for  the  better  dis- 
charge of  the  duties  of  the  ofifice.  Thus  Luther,  in  his  letter  to 
the  Bohemians,  already  suggested  the  introduction  of  superin- 
tendents and  visitors,  and  even  the  establishment  of  an  archi- 
episcopate ;  and  he  thus,  also,  assisted  in  the  establishment  of  the 
plan  of  church  visitations  in  Saxony.  He  then  applies  the  terms, 
"  bishops,"  or  "  overseers,"  or — according  to  Rom.  xii.  8 — 
"  rulers  "  {Regieirr) ,  in  a  narrower  sense  to  those  only  who  "  are 
to  watch  over  all  offices,  that  they  are  properly  administered."* 
On  the  other  hand,  he  gave  no  sanction  to  the  idea  of  a  new 
primacy  over  the  entire  Church,  which  should  not,  like  that  of 
the  Papacy,  claim  "  divine  right,"  but  which  should  be  introduced 
upon  mere  human  authority,  simply  for  the  better  preservation 
of  unity.  He  sees  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  Pope  to 
accede  to  such  a  plan,  and  he  foresees  that  it  would,  in  any 
event,  soon  be  treated  with  contempt,  would  retain  the  allegiance 
of  none,  and  would  lead  to  widespread  disorders.  But  the  Pope, 
as  he  now  is,  he  always  with  great  earnestness  represents  as  Anti- 

'In  A.  D.  1539. 

'Briefe,  iii,  294.     ErI.  Ed.,  xxii,  229  sqq.  ;  xxv,  384.      Briefe,  iv,  210,  282. 
'  Supra,  p.  95. 

*Vol.  I.,  pp.  302,  426  i^q.,  368.     Vol.  II.,   p.  88.     Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  377  sqq.; 
xxiii,  4  .sqq. ;  viii,  26. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  557 

christ,  who,  as  the  man  of  sin,  sets  himself  up  in  his  presumption 
against  all  that  is  called  God.' 

In  possession  thus  of  the  divine  means  of  grace,  in  the  employ- 
ment of  them,  embracing  also  the  various  human  forms  in  which 
they  are  administered,  in  faith  upon  Christ  and  sanctification 
through  His  Spirit,  the  genuine  Christian  world  is  the  community, 
or  Church,  of  Christ — the  people  of  God.  In  it  Christ  has  His 
spiritual  kingdom  and  dominion.''  For  the  sake  of  His  Church, 
and  from  within  it.  He  allows  His  blessings  to  flow  out  upon  the 
whole  world.^ 

This  Church  is  the  Holy  Church — hallowed  through  its  Head 
and  His  Word  and  sacraments — in  Christ,  even  perfectly  right- 
eous, holy  and  without  spot — hallowed,  also,  through  the  daily 
purifying  power  of  the  Spirit  working  in  its  members,  although 
in  them  ever  stained  by  much  sin  and  hence  constantly  im- 
ploring forgiveness.  Nor  is  it  made  unholy  by  the  many  false 
Christians  yet  within  it.  Open  sinners  it  makes  holy,  or  by 
excommunication  casts  them  out  from  participation  in  the  saving 
ordinances.  Yet  the  unholy  in  its  communion  are  always  only 
like  boils  and  ulcers  upon  a  sound  body.  The  little  company  of 
God's  children  is  a  vigorous,  healthy  body,  although  mingled 
with  it  may  be  found  filth  and  stench  which  must  be  cast  out.* 

All  believers  and  saints  are,  moreover,  despite  all  outward 
divisions  and  difference  in  their  human  customs,  bound  together 
under  the  One  Head,  through  the  One  Spirit,  the  Word,  baptism, 
etc.,  in  one  faith,  heart  and  mind — with  manifold  gifts,  but  yet 
harmonious  in  Christian  love.     It  is  One  Church." 

Thus  the  Church,  in  its  character  as  t/mve?-sal,  embraces  the 
believing  of  a/l  places,  even  under  the  Pope,  among  the  Turks, 
etc.®  It  extends  none  the  less,  as  the  One  Catholic  Church, 
through  all  ages.  Even  under  the  Papacy  this  true  community 
of  Christ  continued  to  exist,  and  the  present  evangelical  Church 

'  Vol.   I.,  pp.   293  sqq.,  309,  426  sq.     Erl.    Ed.,  xxv,  123  sq. ;  xli,  295  sqq. 

''■  Supra,  p.  423.  3  Supra,  p.  324.     Briefe,  v,  443. 

*  Vol.  I.,  p.  306.  Comm.  ad  Gal,  iii,  38  sqq.  Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  176,  215. 
Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  354;  supra,  p.  457.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  363;  xvi,  246  sqq.,  259 
sq. ;  ii,  53,  58;  xlix,  268. 

5  Vol.  I.,  pp.  303  sq.,  364.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxi,  103.  Cf.  what  has  been  said 
above  in  regard  to  ceremonies. 

6  Vol.  I.,  p.  308.     Erl.  Ed.,  XXX,  369;  ix,  263. 


558  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER, 

I 

is  one  with  it.  Despite  all  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish 
Church,  there  were  still  preserved  in  it  by  God  not  only  the  Word, 
baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  absolution,  prayer,  the  office  of  the 
ministry,  etc.,  but  ever  also,  together  with  these,  a  number  of 
believers  and  saints,  although,  indeed,  "  everything  went  feebly  " 
there.'  Still  further,  the  Church  of  God  was  already  in  existence 
throughout  Old  Testament  times,  under  the  old  carnal  forms 
appointed  for  Israel,  and,  particularly,  with  an  outward  priest- 
hood and  natural  succession,  in  the  posterity  of  Abraham  and  the 
family  of  Aaron.'^     It  originated  with  Adam  in  Paradise.'' 

This  Church,  ruled  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  and  is  also  ever  the 
"pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth'''  (i  Tim.  iii.  15).  It  cannot 
err,  because  it  abides  by  the  word  of  Scripture,  which  is  essen- 
tially clear.  God  has  also  always  preserved  to  Himself  some 
believing  souls,  whom  He  has,  at  least  before  their  death,  made 
sound  in  their  faith.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  whole  Church, 
i.  e.,  all  Christians,  should  have  fallen  into  error  in  leading  articles 
of  faith,  as,  e.  g.,  that  of  baptism,  or  of  the  presence  of  the  body 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  That  Church,  it  is  true,  which 
is  generally  thought  of  under  the  term,  /.  <?.,  the  visible  Church, 
may  and  does  err.  The  true  Church,  or  community  of  Christ, 
cannot  be  brought  together  at  one  place,  and  it  is  often  found  in 
places  where  we  would  be  least  likely  to  expect  it.  And  even  it, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  genuine  believers  or  saints  who  compose 
it,  falls  at  least  temporarily  into  errors,  by  allowing  itself  to  be 
drawn  from  the  Word,  and  hence  it  always  needs  the  article 
upon  forgiveness.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  err,  and  another  thing 
to  remain  in  error :  the  Church  of  Christ  cannot  remain  in  error. 
In  considering  the  liability  of  the  Church  and  saints  to  error,  we 
must  therefore  always  regard  them  in  a  two-fold  light :  first, 
according  to  the  Spirit,  and  secondly,  according  to  the  flesh — 
and  consider  whether  even  their  worship  and  employment  of  the 
Word  do  not  smack  of  the  flesh.* 

1  Vol.  I.,  p.  421  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  I,  7  sqq. ,  13  sq.  Op.  Ex.,  iii,  56.  Erl.  Ed., 
xxxi,  320,  339  sqq.  ;   xxvi,  10  sqq. 

2  Supra,  pp.  361,  363.     Op.  Ex.,  iii,  55  sqq. 

3  Supra,  pp.  343  sq.,  361,  363. 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  317,  319,  408  sq.,  422,  505.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  53  sq.,  160  sq.,  163. 
Jena,  iii,  181  b.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  332;  xxvi,  35  .sqq.,  1,  9  (vid.  supra,  p.  270 
sqq  )  ;  xlvi,  229  sqq.  ;  1,  304 ;  xlvi,  234;  xl,  235  ;  xi,  lO;  xxv,  59  sqq.;  xxxi, 
332;   xlvi,  247. 


SYSTEINIATIC    REVIEW.  559 

Although  Luther,  in  defending  infant  baptism  and  the  bodily 
presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  eagerly  ap])eals  to  the  univer- 
sality of  the  custom  and  doctrine  advocated  in  the  Church,  which 
cannot,  in  its  totality  and  perpetually,  err,  it  is  yet  here  again 
manifest,  on  the  other  hand,  how  impossible  it  would  be,  in  his 
view,  for  any  external  decision  of  the  Church  to  give  certainty 
in  regard  to  the  true  doctrine,  since  there  must  always  remain 
room  to  inquire,  whether  the  true  saints  are  represented  in  the 
assembly  in  question,  and,  further  still,  whether  the  flesh  may 
not,  in  the  particular  instance  at  hand,  have  temporarily  beclouded 
the  vision  of  even  the  true  believers  present. 

With  such  a  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  Church,  it  remains 
for  Luther  always  an  object  of  faith,  and  not  of  sight — to  be  recog- 
nized, indeed,  by  the  signs  above  enumerated  in  so  far  that  we 
may  know  the  circuit  within  which  the  saints  are  to  be  found, 
and  may,  to  a  certain  extent,  form  conclusions  in  regard  to  indi- 
vidual members  from  the  fruits  borne  in  their  lives — but  not  so 
clearly  as  to  discriminate  with  certainty  between  such  individual 
saints,  or  the  true  people  of  God,  and  the  unholy,  nor  to  see  the 
holiness  of  the  former.  The  difficulty  of  such  discernment  is 
increased  by  the  outward  insignificance  of  the  true  Church,  the 
overwhelming  preponderance  of  the  false  church  in  comparison, 
and  the  subjection  to  shame  and  tribulation,  beneath  which  the 
former  lies  hidden  like  the  treasure  in  the  field,  although  it,  in 
reality,  has  its  hidden  life  with  Christ  in  God.' 

This  is,  it  will  be  observed,  still  Luther's  original  view  of  the 
Church  as  the  little  company  of  holy  believers,  actually  existing, 
living  in  the  world,  and  yet,  in  its  real  nature,  invisible.  We  have 
here  again  heard  him  declaring,  that  impenitent  sinners  and 
enemies  of  the  Gospel,  even  though  not  formally  excluded  from 
the  fellowship  of  the  sacraments,  no  longer  belong  to  the  Church 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  word.  Nevertheless,  he  still  without 
hesitancy  applies  the  name  "  Church  "  also,  in  the  traditional  way, 
to  the  collective  body  of  those  who  stand  in  the  outward  fellow- 
ship of  the  means  of  grace,  the  confession  and  the  ecclesiastical 
ordinances — to  the  whole  field,  upon  which  the  tares  are  growing 

'Vol.  I.,  pp.  365  sq.  (cf.  with  this  also  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und 
Werk,  III,  ii,  391,  Note  against  Miinchmeyer),  426  sq.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxv,  376. 
Comm.  ad  Gal.,  iii,  38.  Briefe,  iv,  316.  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  139  ;  xxxv,  338. 
Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  177;  xxiii,  23  sq.  ;  viii,  193  sqq.     Jena,  iv,  342  b. 


560  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

with  the  wheat — to  the  body,  including  the  boils  found  upon  it. 
Even  Paul,  he  says,  thus  still  addresses  the  degenerate  Galatians 
as  congregations.  In  one  of  his  latest  books,  he  even  says  that 
the  Scriptures  apply  the  name  "  Church,"  /;/  the  first  place,  to  all 
those  who  confess  one  doctrine  and  participate  in  the  same 
sacraments,  despite  the  commingling  of  many  hypocrites  and 
ungodly ;  and,  then  also,  to  that  pure  portion,  or  the  elect,  who 
embrace  the  \\  ord  with  true  faith  and  receive  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  grants  that  we  may  thus  yet  speak  even  of  a  "  holy  Romish 
Church."  Yet  in  such  a  use  of  the  word  he  sees  only  the  figure 
of  speech,  synecdoche.  Peculiarly  and  properly,  as  he  now  again 
asserts,  the  name,  "  Holy  Church,"  belongs  only  to  the  pure 
portion  of  the  visible  communion.' 


The  doctrine  of  Luther  concerning  the  Church  has  now  been 
viewed  in  all  its  fundamental  elements,  and  has  been  seen  to 
constitute  a  complete  whole,  itself  truly  harmonious  in  form,  and 
standing,  likewise,  in  profound  and  clear  mutual  relations  with  his 
entire  view  of  saving  truth  in  general.  There  yet  remains  for  us 
the  task  of  consideiing  more  carefully  this  "community  of  saints" 
in  all  its  relations  to  that  ordinance,  or  power,  to  which  the  secu- 
lar life  has  been  as  such  subjected,  and  which  must  now  also  be, 
and  is,  admiiiistered  by  Christians,  namely,  the  '^  secular pozve7;''^ 
or  "  civil  governwenty  We  must  then,  further,  observe  how 
these  general  principles  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  life 
of  the  Church,  and  especially  in  regard  to  the  preaching-ofifice 
and  the  relation  of  the  congregation  to  the  latter,  were  applied, 
in  accordance  with  his  own  suggestions,  to  the  actual  circum- 
stances of  the  age,  and  thus  attained  a  concrete  development. 
These  two  lines  of  investigation  can  be  best  pursued  together ; 
for  it  was  only  after  Luther  had  been  called  upon  as  a  Reformer 
to  deal  with  these  practical  and  already  existing  conditions  that 
we  find  clearly  and  constantly  brought  into  prominence  those 
views  of  the  relation  of  the  civil  government  to  the  Church 
which  ever  remained  characteristic  of  his  teaching.  The  theory 
thus  developed  as  to  the  province  of  the  civil  government  exercised 
also  the  greatest  influence  upon  the  form  assumed  by  the  Church, 

'  Erl.    Ed.,  xvi,  247  ;  ii,  53  ;  supra,  p.  80.     Op.  Ex.,  xx,  7  sq.     Comm.  ad 
Gal.  i,  40  sq.     Jen-a,  iv,  817. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  56 1 

or  community  of  believers,  wherever  his  doctrines  penetrated.  It 
is  worthy  of  very  particular  attention,  also,  that  we  find  the  views 
referred  to  far  less  fully  expressed  in  his  own  formal  doctrinal 
writings  than  in  letters  and  expressions  of  opinion  drawn  from 
him  in  the  course  of  outward  events.  In  this  sphere  also,  we  shall 
find  in  Luther  fixed  general  principles  and  doctrines.  But,  at 
the  same  time,  we  cannot  fail  to  observe  frequent  wavering  and 
danger  of  falling  into  contradictions.  The  cause  of  this  is  to  be 
sought,  not  only  in  the  difficulties  which  the  existing  state  of 
affairs  usually  interposes  to  the  actual  realization  of  the  clearest 
and  most  practical  ideas ;  but  we  must  acknowledge  that  he  did 
not  so  profoundly  investigate  the  questions  which  arose  in  regard 
to  the  relation  of  the  civil  government  to  ecclesiastical  matters 
as  he  had  done  in  the  case  of  those  relating  to  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  and  the  inner  nature  of  the  Church,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, remained  here  more  largely  under  the  influence  of  tradi- 
tional general  premises. 

To  what  extent,  it  was  inquired,  and  in  what  way,  could  the 
Church,  despite  all  the  carnal  infirmities  and  impure  members 
which  still  inevitably  cling  to  it,  nevertheless  be  actually  exem- 
plified in  the  world  as  the  holy  congregation  of  Christ?  Luther 
constantly  reiterated  the  demand  that  open  sinners  be  cast  out. 
Must  it  not,  in  the  end,  result  in  the  establishment  of  a  com- 
munity such  as  that  of  which  he  speaks  in  his  German  Mass, 
which  should  consist  only  of  such  members  as  earnestly  desire  to 
be  Christians,  exercise  discipline  properly  against  unchristian 
members  according  to  Matt,  xviii.,  and  need  for  themselves  few 
external  forms?  '  Still  further,  in  what  form  should  the  partici- 
pation of  the  congregation,  as  such,  be  concretely  realized  in  the 
exercise  of  discipline  ;  in  the  calling  of  ministers,  who  must,  it  has 
been  claimed,  receive  from  it  their  commission  ;  in  the  confirma- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  laws,  which,  it  was  taught,  must  have  its 
approval ;  and  even  in  passing  judgment  upon  teachers  already 
ordained  and  their  teaching,  inasmuch  as  it  is  charged,  above  all 
things  else,  to  be  on  its  guard  against  shepherds  who  prove  un- 
faithful to  the  Gospel?  And  how,  finally,  should  all  this  be 
accomplished  if  the  congregation  is  still  to  retain  among  its 
members  so  many  who  have  as  yet  no  personal  experience  of 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,  230  sq. 
36 


562  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

true  Christian  life,  or  who  are  strongly  disposed  to  disorderly 
conduct? 

It  will  be  necessarj'  for  us  to  follow  the  course  of  historical 
events  and  circumstances  in  order  to  discover  Luther's  attitude 
upon  these  questions  ;  and  we  shall  find  that  it  was  his  conception 
of  the  province  of  the  civil  authorities  which  here  exercised  the 
controlling  influence. 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  was  among  the  original  funda- 
mental principles  of  Luther,  that  the  secular  sphere  belongs  to  the 
domain  of  the  civil  authorities,  but  not  the  spiritual  sphere  in 
which  the  Church  lives  and  moves.  The  civil  government  has 
to  do  with  the  latter  only  in  so  far  as  this  also  requires  for  its 
continuation  in  the  world  the  preservation  of  peace  in  the  land.' 

But,  since  the  existing,  secularized  ecclesiastical  authorities  of 
the  Papal  Church  now  refused  to  render  any  relief  to  the  Church 
in  its  distressed  condition,  Luther  called  upon  those  who  wielded 
the  secular  authority  to  render  assistance,  as  fellow-citizens  and 
fellow-priests,  just  because  they,  by  reason  of  this  their  civil 
authority,  were  in  position  to  do  so  most  effectively.^  We  have 
here,  primarily,  nothing  more  than  the  idea  of  assistance  to  be 
tendered  in  an  emergency,  as  against  the  encroachments  of  the 
unchristian  power  of  the  corrupt  Church  authorities,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  as  against  the  disorderly  intrusion  of  individuals 
uncalled.  The  aim  was  merely  to  open  the  7va_v  for  a  proper 
representation  of  the  Church  in  a  council,  which  might,  when 
once  assembled,  adopt  such  measures  as  required  by  the  circum- 
stances. Nor  was  it  proposed  at  all  that  the  authority  of  such  a 
council  should  then  make  the  acceptance  of  the  new  evangelical 
ordinances  a  matter  of  commandment  or  compulsion.  Luther 
thus,  in  his  tract,  published  early  in  the  year  1523,  Vo;/  ^ucItUcher 
Ohrigkeit,  etc.,  still  says,  in  opposing  the  prohibition  of  evan- 
gelical books  by  the  governi-nent,  that  not  only  has  the  civil 
government  no  authority  to  exercise  any  compulsion  in  matters 
of  faith,  but  that  it  lies,  not  within  its  province,  but  in  that  of  the 
bishops,  to  guard  against  false,  deceptive  doctrine  and  heresy.' 
Since,  then,  there  could  evidently  be  no  thought  of  a  reformation 
through  a  free  evangelical  council,  Luther's  next  idea  was  that, 

'  Supra,  p.  482  sq.  '■'  Vol.  I.,  p.  375. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xxii,90. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  563 

in  the  various  countries  and  cities,  the  civil  authorities  should 
a/lou>,  under  their  protection,  the  free  preaching  of  tlie  Word, 
which  would  then  conquer  by  its  own  inherent  power,  and  should 
assist  and  confirm  the  new  measures  introduced  by  any  Christian 
community  under  their  jurisdiction  which  may  have  been  aroused 
to  spiritual  activity  by  the  Word  thus  preached.  In  this  spirit 
he  wrote,  for  example,  to  the  council  of  Prague,  A.  D.  1523, 
advising  that  the  decision  of  the  question,  whether  the  new  form 
(of  worship)  should  be  introduced  throughout  all  Bohemia,  be 
referred  to  the  existing  estates  of  the  land,  but  that  no  compul- 
sion be  employed  in  any  separate  districts.* 

Yet,  as  early  as  A.  D.  1522,  he  had  already  gone  farther  in  his 
utterances  in  relation  to  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  Saxony  (and 
also  Schwartzburg) ,  in  which  he  was,  of  course,  most  directly 
interested.  He  now  not  only  maintained  that  the  civil  ruler  may 
secure  the  pure  preaching  of  the  \\'ord,  but  that  he  may  guard 
his  people  against  the  false  and  stubborn  papal  preachers,  and, 
instead  of  the  latter,  who  have  forfeited  their  official  character 
by  opposing  the  Gospel,  may  help  to  appoint,  or  himself  appoint, 
new  pastors.  In  contrast  with  the  quotation  in  the  preceding 
paragraph  from  the  tract.  Von  iveltlicher  Obrigkcit,  we  must  cite 
also  from  the  Trcue  Verwalinung — vor  Aufruhr,  etc.,  published 
in. 1522,  the  declaration,  that  we  should  not,  indeed,  kill  the  ) 
miserable  priests,  as  did  Elijah,  but  we  should  prohibit  by  word  / 
of  mouth  and  restrain  In'  force  their  machinations  against  the 
Gospel.  Princes  and  rulers  must  in  this  way  do  their  part,  in 
order  to  avert  the  wrath  of  God.  In  A.  D.  1525,  we  reach  at 
length  the  completely  developed  view  of  the  matter,  which,  from 
that  time  on,  remained  the  controlling  principle  for  the  theologians 
and  princes  of  the  Reformation,  namely  :  that  open  blasphemies 
against  the  divine  name,  such  as,  for  example,  that  perpetrated  in 
the  abomination  of  the  mass,  are  to  be  accounted  a  public  dis- 
grace, which  the  civil  authorities  should  take  proper  means  to 
prevent.  It  is  the  province  of  the  latter  to  prohibit  "  cxfernas 
aboniinationesy  Luther  makes  the  further  broad  assertion,  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  govei'nment,  as  such,  to  honor  the  Word 
of  God,  to  demand  that  it  be  taught,  etc.'''     This  was  essentially 

'  Supra,  p.  S8.     Jena,  ii,  586  b. 

''Briefe,  ii,  192  sq.,  258.     I£rl.  Ed.,  xxii,  49.     Briefe,  iii,  50,  89;  iv,  93  sq. 
Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  244,  250. 


564  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

the  same  view  as  that  which  the  opposing  party  also  maintained, 
and  which  held  sway  in  the  entire  traditional  theory,  legislation 
and  practice/  The  only  distinction  lay  in  the  fact,  that  Luther 
released  the  princes  from  the  dependence  upon  the  judgment  of 
the  Papal  Church  as  to  what  is  really  the  teaching  of  the  Word 
of  God,  and  summoned  them  to  act  according  to  their  own  inde- 
pendent convictions  as  to  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures.  They 
received  also,  through  the  edicts  of  the  Diet  of  Spires  in  1526, 
lawful  authority  to  act  for  the  time  being  in  external  matters  of 
this  kind  upon  their  own  territories. 

As  to  the  false  evangelical  errorists,  the  Anabaptists  and 
Fanatics,  Luther  was  at  first  very  anxious,  in  the  interest  of  the 
Word  itself,  that  the  latter  should  be  allowed  to  assert  its  power 
and  thus  itself  vanquish  its  opponents,  and  that  the  disorderly 
spirits  should  be  permitted  to  fight  among  themselves  without 
interference.  So  late  as  February,  1525,  he  endeavored  to  regard 
certain  Fanatics  who  appeared  in  Nuremburg  "  as  not  yet  blas- 
phemers," but  only  misguided  Christians.'^  But  his  judgment  in 
the  premises  was  quite  different,  so  soon  as,  in  his  opinion,  the 
free  Word  had  borne  sufficiently  clear  testimony  against  their 
folly.  Even  the  apologetic  utterance  last  cited  suggests  the 
category  of  blasphemers  as  that  under  which  the  Fanatics  were 
naturally  included. 

He  now  further  justifies  active  measures  against  the  Fanatics, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Papists,  upon  the  other,  upon  the 
ground  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  civil  government  to  preserve 
harmony  in  the.  land  and  to  prevent  all  schisms  and  quarrels. 
Otherwise,  sa3^s  he,  we  should  have  to  expect  insurrection  at 
length  in  consequence  of  the  teachings  of  these  "  perverse  " 
preachers.  The  government  dare  never  tolerate  any  schismatic 
doctrine.  He  combines  both  point?  of  view  in  the  declaration, 
that  the  government  must  with  its  sword  guard  against  the  offence 
of  false  doctrine  and  improper  divine  worship ;  otherwise  all 
authority  would  be  undermined  and  all  manner  of  calamities 
would  ensue;' 

We  must,  finally,  not  overlook  the  assertion  of  Luther,  that  "  all 
tilings  which  we  adorn  with  ceremonies,  as  vestments,  postures, 

'  Cf.  also  Briefe,  iv,  93  sq.  ''■  Briefe,  ii,  135,  547,  622. 

•''Briefe,  iii,  89,  489.      Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  9;  ii,  59  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  565 

fasts,  festivals,"  are  secular,  earthly  matters,  under  the  supervision 
of  reason,  and  hence  reason  here  may  act  and  control.'  He  says 
this,  it  is  true,  only  in  attempting  to  prove  that  the  fasts  and 
festivals  demanded  by  the  Papists  might  be  regarded  as  merely 
a  sort  of  secular  ordinances  established  by  the  civil  authorities,'^ 
and  not  with  any  thought  of  furnishing  the  evangelical  princes  an 
argument  to  justify  the  adoption  on  their  part  of  measures  affect- 
ing the  cultus  of  the  Church.  But,  in  the  actual  measures 
adopted  under  the  official  sanction  of  the  civil  authorities  of  the 
day,  the  two  points  of  view  were  not  kept  clearly  distinct  in  the 
minds  of  the  people. 

The  evangelical  civil  rulers,  accordingly,  now  abolished  masses, 
appointed  neiv  preachers,  threatening  the  recalcitrant  with  expatri- 
ation, and  before  long  began  to  prepare  comprehensive  new 
liturgical  forms  for  the  conduct  of  divine  worship  and  the  regu- 
lation of  the  pastoral  office,  introducing  the  latter  under  civil 
protection  and  instruction.  That  such  a  course  was  in  itself  not 
justified  either  by  the  peculiar  calling  of  the  civil  government  or 
by  the  nature  of  the  Church,  Luther,  indeed,  expressly  declares 
in  his  preface  to  the  Saxon  Visitationsunterricht  oi  1528.  Since, 
he  there  says,  there  was  a  pressing  necessity  for  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  proper  episcopal  and  visitatorial  office,  and  yet  no 
one  of  us  had  a  calling,  or  clear  commission,  for  its  exercise  * 
*  *  "we  have  endeavored  to  keep  upon  sure  ground,^  and, 
confining  ourselves  to  the  office  of  love  (which  is  common  and 
commanded  to  all  Christians),  have  humbly  implored  His  Elec- 
toral Grace,  out  of  love  (for  it  could  not  be  required  on  the  basis 
of  his  worldly  authority)  and  for  God's  sake,  *  *  *  to  call 
and  ordain  persons  for  this  office."  He  declares,  in  a  similar 
way,  in  connection  with  the  installation  of  an  evangelical  bishop 
at  Naumburg,  that  the  chapter  at  that  place  should  itself  properly 
have  undertaken  the  election  of  the  one  to  fill  this  office ;  but 
that,  since  the  incumbents  of  the  office  refuse  to  discharge  their 
duty,  the  secular  officers  must  be  emergency- bishops,  and  protect 
the  true  preachers  and  assist  them  to  preach.  He  appeals  also 
to  Isa.  xlix.  23  (kings  shall  be  thy  nursing-fathers),  which  the 
church-orders  often  apply  directly  to   the   participation  of  the 

1  Briefe,  iv,  143.  ^Cf.  supra,  p.  473. 

^"  Des  Gewissen  wollen  spielen  ";  cf.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  59,  325. 


566  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

secular  princes  in  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  Only  thus,  indeed, 
could  his  principle,  that  the  government  should  tolerate  only  the 
One  Church  of  the  pure  Word,  be  perfectly  carried  out;  but  care 
must  be  exercised  that  the  inward  regulation  of  the  Church  be 
left  in  the  hands  of  purely  ecclesiastical  agencies.  It  is  to  be 
regarded,  furthermore,  as  the  actual  duty  of  Christian  rulers, 
according  to  other  utterances  of  Luther,  to  render  this  service  of 
love  in  such  cases  of  necessity.  The  Preface  above  referred  to 
declares  further,  that,  although  the  prince  is  not  commanded  to 
teach  and  to  exercise  spiritual  sway,  he  must  yet,  as  a  secular  ruler, 
see  to  it  that  strife  and  faction  do  not  break  out  in  his  realm.^ 

Luther  then  describes  as  teaching  not  to  be  tolerated,  and  as 
blasphemy,  every  denial  of  any  arircTe' clearly  based  upon  the 
Scriptures  and  believed  by  the  whole  Christian  Church.  In  this 
category  he  includes,  for  example,  the  Romish  doctrine  of  satis- 
faction for  sin  rendered  by  man  himself,  and  the  Zwinglian  doc- 
trine upon  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  disputes  between  Papists  and 
evangelical  Christians,  the  government  shall  investigate,  and  im- 
pose silence  upon  the  party  whose  principles  do  not  agree  with 
the  Scriptures.  Effective  measures  should  be  taken  against  cor- 
ner-preachers because,  in  the  first  place,  they  come  uncalled 
and  create  discord ;  and,  further,  because  of  their  disposition  to 
encourage  Anabaptistic  insurrection  against  the  established  seculai 
order.  All  such  persons  should  be  commanded  to  keep  silence, 
and,  if  they  do  not  obey,  driven  out  of  the  land.  Slanderers  of 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  and  of  the  office  of  the  ministry  are  threat- 
ened with  imprisonment.'  Yet  Luther  always  expresses  himself 
most  decidedly  against  the  infliction  of  the  death-penalty  upon 
false  teachers ;  fearing  that  there  might  otherwise  be  among  the 
adherents  of  the  Gospel  a  repetition  of  the  papal  abuse  of  power. 
It  was  another  matter  entirely  when  he  sanctioned  the  use  of  the 
sword,  although  "a  cruel  thing  to  see,"  against  Anabaptists,  since 
they  undertake  even  to  destroy  the  "  kingdoms  of  the  world."  ^ 

But,  with  all  these  concessions  to  the  civil  authority,  he  repeat- 
edly declares,  that  no  one  dare,  nor  can,  be  driven  to  faith  itself. 

^  Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  5  sq. ;  xxvi,  103;  xxiii,  9;  cf.  Richter,  Kirchenordnun- 
gen,  i,  77. 

■■^Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  250  sqq  ;  xxxi,  217;  xliii,  313.  Briefe,  iii,  263;  iv, 
407,  355;  V,  I,  507. 

3  Briefe,  iii,  347  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  256  ;  xvi,  259  sqq.     Briefe,  vi,  291. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  567 

Every  one  may  in  private  blaspheme,  conduct  divine  worship, 
or  read  books,  as  much  as  he  pleases.'  Yet,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that,  without  attempting  to  drive  slan- 
derers of  true  doctrine  to  faith,  we  should  compel  them  to  attend 
preaching  for  the  sake  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  in  order  that 
they  may  at  least  learn  the  outward  works  of  obedience — and, 
with  reference  to  the  ignorant  (what  might,  however,  be  only 
too  readily  applied  also  to  errorists),  that  we  should  require 
pastors  and  the  children  of  the  Church,  under  penalty,  to  make 
proper  use  of  the  Catechism,  in  order  that  those  who  want  to  be 
called  Christians  may  at  least  be  compelled  to  learn  what  a 
Christian  ought  to  know,  whether  or  not  they  will  then  believe  it.^ 
In  view  of  the  above  principles,  it  is  easy  to  explain  the  actual 
character  of  the  coz/oregations  which  were  formed  as  evangelical 
organizations  under  such  activity  and  instructions  on  the  part  of 
the  civil  authorities,  and  under  the  preaching  thus  provided.  We 
have  already  presented  the  idea  advanced  by  Luther  in  1526  in 
regard  to  a  congregation  composed  entirely  of  genuine  Christians. 
He  adds,  when  suggesting  this,  that  he  cannot,  however,  and 
would  not,  attempt  as  yet  to  organize  such  a  congregation,  since 
he  had  not  the  people  needed  for  the  purpose ;  but  that,  if  the 
time  should  ever  come  when  he  could  no  longer  with  a  good 
conscience  refuse  to  make  such  an  attempt,  he  will  do  the  best 
that  he  can  to  accomplish  it.  He  had  expressed  the  same 
thought  in  the  part  of  the  Church  Posiils  which  appeared  in  1525, 
together  with  the  remark,  that  he  would  gladly  have  done  so  long 
ago,  but  the  matter  had  not  yet  been  sufficiently  preached  and 
urged.  Against  the  Homberg  plan  of  reformation,  of  the  year 
1525,  which  sought  to  carry  out  this  idea,  he  raised  no  objection 
on  the  ground  of  its  essential  character,  but  merely  held  that 
such  an  order  should  and  could  not  be  at  once  introduced  as  a 
law.'  In  March  of  the  following  year,  he  is  still  in  hopes  that 
by  means  of  the  Church  Visitation  there  may  be  established, 
instead  of  the  "theatrical  assemblage"  {concio  theatra/is),  of 
Christians  and  non-christians  together,  a  "  gathering  of  Chris- 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  250  sq.,  253.     Briefe,  iii,  90,  498  ;  iv,  94  (Prohibition  of 
the  printing  of  books.)     Briefe,  iii,  528  sq.     Seidem,  Lutherbriefe,  39. 

■^  Briefe,  iii,  498;  cf.  i,  327  ;  iv,  308. 

•^  Cf.  supra,  p.  554  pq.     Ell.  Ed.,  xxxii,  231 ;  xi,  185  sqq.     Briefe,  vi,  80 sq. 


568  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

tians  "  in  which  it  will  be  possible  to  exercise  discipline  according 
to  Matt,  xviii.'  Long  afterwards  he  still  declares  most  positively, 
at  least  in  regard  to  the  openly  sinful,  however  little  the  actual 
practice  may  have  corresponded  with  the  principle,  that  the 
Church  does  not  tolerate  such  in  its  midst,  but  casts  them  out.^ 
He  at  a  still  later  day  spoke  appreciatively  of  the  discipline  exer- 
cised in  the  Swiss  churches,  and  particularly  of  that  among  the 
Bohemian  Brethren.^  But  the  great  bulk  of  the  congregations  of 
the  Lutheran  reformation  continued  to  embrace,  in  largely  pre- 
ponderating numbers,  the  "  simple-minded  people,"  and  even 
the  "coarse  crowd";  for  these,  therefore,  the  public  worship 
must  still  be  essentially  "  a  public  incitement  to  Christian  life  " 
{Reizniig  zum^  CJiristeutJium),  and  Luther  was  compelled  to 
bitterly  lament  that  even  the  most  necessary  exercise  of  discipline 
was  unattainable.  All  the  more,  however,  did  he  rejoice  that  the 
Word  was  here  at  least  so  widely  proclaimed  and  carried  its 
message  to  so  many,  and  that  the  Church  was,  nevertheless,  in 
possession  of  the  means  of  grace  and,  with  the  multitude  of  true 
believers  within  its  bounds,  remained  a  holy  congregation  and 
dwelling  place  of  God. 

In  accord  also  with  the  general  principles  which  we  have  traced, 
we  find  developed  the  theory  of  the  independent  participation  of 
individual  congregations  in  the  administration  of  the  Church. 
The  pastors,  who  are  to  exercise  the  public  ministry  of  the  Word 
of  Christ  "  on  account  of  the  congregation,"  Luther  frequently 
describes  simply  as  "  called  by  the  civil  authorities"  {0^>rigkeif).* 
He  declares,  for  example,  in  A.  D.  1536,  with  reference  to  the 
above-mentioned  establishment  of  the  pastoral  ofifice  at  Erfurt, 
that  the  calling  of  pastors  is  not  properly  the  business  of  the  civil 
ruler  or  magistrate,  but  that  of  the  congregation  {eccksia),  and 
that  the  magistrate  therefore  extends  the  call,  not  as  a  magistrate, 
but  as  a  member  of  the  Church.  He  then  recognizes  the  Erfurt 
preachers,  since  they  have  been  called,  "  not  only  by  the  people 
and  the  congregation,  but  by  the  chief  magistrate,"  thus  still 
speaking  also  of  the  call  as  extended  by  the  congregation  itself ; 
and  he  relies,  still  further,  upon  the  recognition  accorded  them 

'  Briefe,  iii,  166  sq.  ;  cf.  154.  2  Ej-].  Ed.,  xxv,  363. 

'  Briefe,  v,  86.     Comenii,  Historia  fr.-itrum,  Hnlce,  1702,  pp.  23,  25. 
*Erl.  Ed.,  vi,  9.     Comm.  ad  Gal.,  i,  31  sq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  569 

by  the  preachers  of  the  other  congregations.  In  his  E.xcmpel 
cinen  rccJitoi  Bischof  zii  iveihen  (Model  for  the  ordination  of  a 
true  bishop),  pubhshed  in  1542,  he  demands,  Hkewise,  as  we 
have  heard,  that  the  Church  and  the  bishop  be  one,  and  that  the 
Church  (evidently  the  congregation)  be  willing  to  give  heed  to 
the  bishop.'  But,  although  he  elsewhere  also  urges  the  formal 
recognition  of  the  candidate  by  his  brethren  already  in  the  min- 
istry, in  actual  practice  the  reception  of  the  preacher  by  the  con- 
gregation,- in  connection  with  its  civil  rulers,  always  appears  to 
have  consisted  in  mere  passive  and  silent  consent. 

Ecclesiastical  laws,  moreover,  are  framed  by  the  civil  rulers, 
under  the  advice  of  the  theologians,  without  any  effort  to  secure 
the  consent  of  the  remaining  members  of  the  congregation.  Of 
the  laity,  none  take  active  part  in  this  work  except  the  princes 
and  their  secular  counselors. 

For  the  infliction  of  excommunication  Luther  habitually,  with 
great  earnestness,  demanded  the  co-operation  of  the  congregation. 
After  having,  in  the  absence  of  any  formal  provision  for  this, 
first  of  all  exhorted  pastors  to  at  least  exclude  the  stubbornly 
wicked  from  the  communion,'^  he  finally  (A.  D.  1539)  expresses 
his  desire  for  the  introduction  of  the  following  order :  ''  I  send," 
says  he,  "  to  the  sinner,  after  I  have  admonished  him,  two  per- 
sons, such  as  chaplains,  or  others.  Afterwards,  I  add  to  these 
two  of  the  council  and  overseers  { Kastenherrn)  and  two  honor- 
able men  of  the  congregation.  Finally,  if  he  remains  obstinate, 
I  announce  it  publicly  to  the  Church — with  the  request :  '  Help 
to  counsel,  kneel  down,  help  to  pray  against  him  and  give  him 
over  to  the  devil,'  "  etc.^  We  observe  that  he  here  again  includes 
also  the  civil  officers,  although  he  protested  vigorously  ^  against 
wanton  interference  upon  their  part.  In  1540,  he  sends  to 
Nuremberg  by  Melanchthon,  Jonas  and  Bugenhagen,  a  statement 
of  his  views  in  regard  to  excommunication,  in  which  he  sanctions 
its  administration  "in  any  congregation,  the  elders  having  been 
called  into  consultation."  ^  The  so-called  Wittenberg  Reforma- 
tion of  1545,  which  met  with  his  approval,  recommends,  further, 

J  Briefe,  vi,  179  sq.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxvi,  105. 
*Cf.  especially  Briefe,  v,  8.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxiii,  64. 

^  Briefe,  iv,  497.     Cf.  Luther's  own  course,  Tischr.,  ii,  350  sq.      Briefe,  vi, 
213  sq. 

*  Tischr.,  iii,  352  sqq.  ^  Briefe,  iii,  538.  *  Ibid.,  v,  266. 


570  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   LUTHER. 

that  "  honorable  and  learned  men — as  honorable  members  of  the 
congregation  among  the  laity — from  the  other  ranks  of  the 
people  "  be  invited  to  participate.  Still  further,  he  speaks  in 
high  terms,  in  1543,  of  the  Hessian  form  of  excommunication, 
which  was  based  upon  a  formal  elders'  institute,  and  wishes  that 
it  were  possible  to  introduce  it  also  at  other  places.'  But  he 
was  never  able  to  put  into  actual  practice  his  suggestion  of  A.  D. 
1539,  nor  anything  of  a  similar  nature.  In  Electoral  Saxony, 
although  proposals  of  excommunication  were  to  come  from  the 
pastors  themselves,  the  decision  in  regard  to  them  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  consistories.  Luther  bewails,  in  general,  the  fact 
that  there  is  no  zeal  whatever  among  church  members  themselves 
for  the  exercise  of  discipline  in  the  spirit  of  Christ's  instructions ; 
that  no  one  was  willing  to  make  a  beginning  in  admonishing  his 
neighbor  on  account  of  his  vices  and  transgressions  and  then 
bringing  the  matter  before  the  Church." 

With  all  the  functions  and  duties  which  Luther  thus  granted 
and  commended  to  the  civil  authorities  in  ecclesiastical  affairs, 
he  yet  always  insisted  upon  his  fundamental  principle  as  to  the 
strict  distinction  which  must  be  preserved  between  the  secular 
and  the  spiritual  authorities,  if  both  were  not  to  be  involved  in 
confusion  and  disorder.'^  To  those  who  saw  in  the  steps  taken 
with  his  approval  by  the  evangelical  princes  an  assumption  of 
spiritual  authority,  he  replied,  that  the  princes  only  assent  to  the 
preaching  and  do  not  themselves  preach,  and  that  the  abuses 
which  they  seek  to  correct  are  external  matters,  etc. ;  *  and  it  is 
certainly  true  that  he  would  never  consent  to  the  exercise  of 
directly  spiritual  functions,  or  direct  compulsion  in  spiritual 
matters,  upon  their  part,  ^^'ith  the  activity  of  the  princes,  how- 
evei,  very  grave  perils  at  once  began  to  menace  the  very  churches 
whose  patrons  they  had  been  invited  to  become.  Luther  de- 
clares :  "It  does  not  belong  to  princes  to  confirm  even  the 
true  doctrine,  but  to  be  subject  to  and  serve  it  as  the  Word  of 
God."  Nevertheless,  their  decision  as  to  what  is  true  doctrine 
was  absolutely  prescriptive  for  all  teaching  upon  their  territory, 
although  those  who  did  not  agree  with  their  decisions  might  con- 

'  Briefe,  v,  551.  ^Jena,  iv,  818.     Tischr.,  ii,  357. 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  483  sq.      Briefe,  iv.,  105  sqq.  ;  v,  8.     Op.  Ex.,  xxiii,  383  sqq. 

*  Briefe,  iv,  142;  vi,  119  sq.;  iii,  50. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  57  I 

tinue  to  privately  cherish  their  own  opinions,  or  leave  the  district.' 
Very  soon  the  Papists  began  to  appeal  to  the  example  thus  set 
by  the  evangelical  princes  when  protest  was  made  against  the 
suppression  of  the  new  doctrines  in  their  territory.  It  was  said  : 
The  Emperor  is  also  certain  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  is  right,  and  he  must  hence  exert  all  his  power 
to  banish  the  heretical  Lutheran  teaching  from  the  kingdom. 
Luther,  upon  one  occasion,  gave  to  a  nobleman  of  Ducal  Saxony, 
who  had  been  commanded  by  his  prince  to  expel  the  evangelical 
preachers,  the  advice,  in  undeniable  conflict  with  his  utterances 
upon  other  occasions,  to  decline  the  undertaking  upon  the  ground, 
that  the  divine  commandment  bound  him  to  the  exercise  of  only 
secular,  and  not  spiritual,  dominion.  In  regard  to  the  Emperor, 
Luther  says  :  "  We  know  that  ke  is  not  sure  of  it  (/.  e.,  the 
correctness  of  the  papal  doctrine)  and  cannot  be."  He  found, 
also,  an  additional  support  here  in  his  conception  of  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  imperial  princes  as  against  the  Emperor. 
Beyond  this,  his  only  reply  to  the  claim  of  the  papal  persecutors, 
that  they,  too,  are  bound  by  their  office  and  conscience  to  adopt 
the  course  taken  by  them,  is:  "What  do  I  care  for  that?"  It 
is  evident  enough,  he  says,  that  they,  in  other  cases  also,  use  their 
power  wantonly.'^  But,  especially  within  the  bounds  of  his  own 
congregation,  Luther  soon  found  occasion  for  the  bitterest  laments 
over  the  conduct  of  the  princes  and  their  courts,  who  now  sought 
to  rule  as  they  "pleased  within  the  Church  as  well,  and  to  inter- 
pose difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  proper  work.  He  observed 
among  them  particularly  the  greatest  opposition  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  true  ecclesiastical  discipline.  "  Satan  continues  to  be 
Satan.  Under  the  Pope,  he  mixed  up  the  Church  with  politics ; 
in  our  times,  he  seeks  to  mix  up  politics  with  the  Church."  ^ 

The  peculiar  mission  of  Luther,  however,  did  not  lie  at  all 
within  the  sphere  of  concrete,  practical  organization.  His  great 
fundamental  principles  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Church,  to  which 
due  prominence  was  given  at  the  opening  of  the  present  chapter, 

'Jena,  i,  579,b.  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixv,  177.  As  to  the  course  to  be  pursued  by 
the  civil  authorities  in  doctrinal  disputes,  cf.  supra,  p.  566.  Erl.  Ed., 
xxxix,  252. 

*  Briefe,  iv,  93  sq.;  iii,  267.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  257  sq. 

3  Ibid.,  V,  596.  551,  575  ;  iv,  399.      Erl.  Ed.,  xlvi,  184  sqq. ;  xlvii,  16. 


572  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

Still  stand  out  in  their  full  force  and  unclouded  light,  despite, 
all  criticisms  which  may  be  suggested  by  the  later  utterances 
cited  in  respect  to  doctrine  or  practice.  He  himself  found 
consolation  in  the  reflection,  that  the  Church,  the  community  of 
saints,  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the  sacraments,  will  assuredly 
still  be  preser\ed,  and  will  arise  from  time  to  time  with  fresh 
energy,  even  despite  the  weakness  and  obscurity  of  its  earthly 
existence. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE    LAST   THINGS. 

NOT   THOROUGHLY   DISCUSSED  BY  LUTHER CHILIASM CHRIST'S  COM- 
ING EXPECTED INTERMEDIATE  STATE AN  INCOMPLETE  CONDITION 

A  STATE   OF  SLEEP TORMENTS    OF  THE  WICKED SIN    EXPELLED 

AT    DEATH LOCALITY DAY    OF    JUDGMENT VISIBLE    ADVENT    OF 

CHRIST HELL FINAL    BLESSEDNESS     OF    BELIEVERS THE    GLORI- 
FIED    BODY TRANSFORMATION     OF     EXTERNAL    WORLD ETERNAL 

SABBATH. 

Under  nearly  all  the  topics  embraced  in  the  theology  of  Luther, 
we  find  it  difficult  to  present  in  concise  form  the  full  wealth  of 
his  independent  ideas  and  views.  It  may  appear  very  strange 
that  the  case  should  be  so  entirely  different  in  regard  to  the 
subject  of  our  present  chapter — that  there  should  here,  on  the 
contrary,  be  a  dearth  of  positive  ideas  peculiar  to  himself,  intro- 
duced anew  by  him  into  Christian  theology,  or  quickened  by  his 
energy  into  fresh  vigor.  His  principal  achievement  in  this  sphere 
was,  in  fact,  chiefly  negative  in  character,  /.  e.,  the  opposing  and 
rejection  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  that, 
too,  upon  the  basis  of  the  fundamental  evangelical  doctrine  of 
the  plan  of  salvation,  against  which  the  theory  of  purgatory  had 
arrayed  itself.  The  views  which  he  himself  adopts  concerning 
the  condition  of  departed  souls  are  but  slightly  developed.  In 
regard  to  the  final  state  of  man  and  of  the  world  after  the  Day 
of  Judgment,  he  makes  no  attempt  to  secure  neiv  information 
from  the  Scriptures,  however  freshly  and  vividly  he  draws  upon 
their  resources. 

This  phenomenon  is  certainly  not  to  be  explained  by  the  sup- 
position that — in  consequence,  perhaps,  of  the  newly-achieved 
Christian  liberty  and  his  glowing  sense  of  the  blessedness  already 
enjoyed  by  the  believer — he  felt  himself  altogether  too  much  at 
home   in   the  present  world    to    be    greatly  disposed    to    more 

(573) 


574  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

thorough  investigations  in  regard  to  that  which  is  to  come. 
Upon  the  contrary,  as  a  direct  result  of  the  full  assurance  of  sal- 
vation which  he  now  cherished,  the  deepest  longing  of  his  soul 
was  directed  toward  those  scenes  in  which  alone  the  spirit  of  the 
believer,  here  continually  engaged  in  a  struggle  with  sin  and  the 
world,  and  leading  a  life  hidden  with  God,  can  attain  at  length 
to  a  true  knowledge  of  its  own  treasures  and  endowments,  and 
to  that  general  condition  of  things  which  is  demanded  by  the 
deepest  requirements  of  its  own  nature.  Although  he  teaches 
Christians,  while  pursuing  their  regular  callings  in  the  present 
world,  to  rejoice  in  the  blessings  vouchsafed  by  the  Creator, 
he  yet  continually  longs,  hopes  for,  and  promises  the  approach 
of  the  Great  Day  which  shall  bring  the  world  to  an  end.  We 
must,  first  of  all,  make  due  allowance  for  the  very  marked  influ- 
ence exerted  upon  his  attitude  toward  the  doctrines  in  question 
by  his  anxiety  not  to  be  carried  by  human  theorizing  and  imagi- 
nation beyond  the  bounds  which  the  Scriptures  themselves  have 
set  to  our  knowledge.  He  saw  impressive  warnings  against  this 
peril,  not  only  in  the  mischievous  invention  of  a  purgatory,  but, 
as  well,  in  the  Anabaptist  theory  of  an  earthly  kingdom  of  Christ, 
in  the  interest  of  which  the  present  divinely-ordained  civil  ordi- 
nances were  to  be  overturned.  To  these  influences  must  be 
added,  also,  the  inward  and  spiritual  nature  of  his  view  of  Chris- 
tian salvation,  in  consequence  of  which  the  theory  that  this  earth 
is  yet  to  become  the  scene  of  an  outwardly  victorious  kingdom 
of  Christ  had  no  attraction  for  him  ;  and,  further,  his  holding  of 
such  a  conception  of  the  deliverance  and  renewal  already  essen- 
tially effected  in  the  case  of  the  believing  followers  of  Christ  as 
appeared  to  him  to  leave  no  necessity  for  a  further  moral  develop- 
ment of  their  souls  in  the  intermediate  state  before  the  resurrec- 
tion. But,  as  has  been  said,  the  longing  desire  of  his  heart  was 
directed  simply  toward  the  time  when  that  which  has  been 
already  secured  by  them  shall  be  fully  revealed  in  an  entirely 
new  world.'  This  he  would  have  made  the  aim,  likewise,  of  all 
Christian  preaching  :  "  Whatever  we  teach,  appoint  or  establish, 
is  done  to  the  end  that  the  pious  may  look  forward  to  the 
coming  of  their  Saviour  in  the  Last  Day."  ^ 

As  to  the  general  course  of  events  before  the  coming  of  the 

^Cf.  also  our  remarks,  p.  476.  ^  Op.  Ex.,  xxii,  12. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  575 

Day  of  Judgment,  he  rejects  absolutely,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of 
the  modern  anabapiistic  Chiliasts  and  the  ancient  TertuUiani, 
etc.,  of  an  earthly  kfngdom  which  Christ  is  to  establish  with  His 
saints  before  that  day.  He  rejects  the  dream — "  as  though  such  a 
Church  should  yet  be  gathered  before  the  Day  of  Judgment,  in 
which  none  but  pious  persons  and  Christians,  all  their  enemies 
having  been  beforehand  even  bodily  destroyed  by  them,  should 
reign  peacefully  without  any  opposition  or  strife."  He  knows  no 
ground  for  any  other  view  than  that  as  long  as  Christ  shall  reign 
upon  this  earth  we  shall  have  to  expect  continually  in  His  king- 
dom, which  is  here  a  spiritual  one,  instead  of  worldly  peace  and 
quiet  life,  enemies,  factions  and  outward  disturbances.' 

But,  from  the  very  beginning  of  his  reformatoiy  preaching,  we 
find  Luther  expressing  the  confident  hope  that  the  Day  of  Judg-  "] 
vient  itself  may  be  near  at  hand?  He  endeavors,  also,  to  find 
in  the  Scriptures  sure  evidence  of  this,  and  believes  himself  to 
have  discovered  it,  especially  in  Daniel.  He  explains,  that  the 
fourth  world-kingdom  is  the  Roman  Empire,  at  the  end  of  which, 
therefore,  will  come  the  end  of  the  world.  And  w^e  are  now 
standing  at  the  end  of  this  kingdom,  which  has  only  in  name  been 
merged  into  the  German  kingdom.  In  its  decadence,  the  pro- 
phesied Antichrist,  the  Pope,  forced  himself  into  prominence,  but 
he  is  even  now  already  falling.  The  little  horn  of  Dan.  vii.  8, 
which  is  to  overturn  three  of  the  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  kingdom, 
has  already  appeared.  It  is  the  Turk,  who  now  possesses  Egypt, 
Asia  and  Greece.  But,  with  all  his  power,  a  limit  has  been  set 
to  his  advance.  His  power  dare  not  become  so  great  as  that  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  since  the  way  would  then  be  opened  for  a 
fifth  world-kingdom.  These  are  the  two  great  tyrants  and 
dragons  who  were  to  appear  before  the  Day  of  Judgment — the 
one  with  doctrine,  the  other  with  the  sword  ;  and  the  Turk  is  the 
last.^  In  the  same  spirit,  Luther  seeks  to  interpret  also  the 
Revelation  of  St.  John.  The  thousand  5'ears  there  spoken  of  lie 
proposes  to  estimate  from  the  time  when  the  book  was  composed, 
but  sometimes  *  counts  them  from  the  birth  of  Christ.     He  ob- 

lErl  Ed.,xi,  85;   xlv,  no  sq. 

*  Briefe,  ii,  522.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxi,  328.     Weimar.  Pred.,  82 
'Vol.  I.,  p.  423.     Erl.  Ed.,  xli,  233,  243  sqq. ;  xxxi,  83  sqq      Briefe,  iii, 
427,  517,  524  sq. 
*Jena,  iv,  74I, 


576  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

sen-es,  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  strike  the  very  minute  in  our 
reckoning.  In  Gog  and  Magog,  vvliom  Satan  brings  upon  the 
scene  after  the  lapse  of  the  thousand  years,  he  sees  again  the 
Turks.  He  declares,  also,  that,  at  the  time  when  Satan  was  loosed, 
the  Romish  Antichrist  arose  likewise  with  the  power  of  the  sword.' 
We  have  already  seen  that  Luther  regarded  also  other  prophecies 
of  the  Apocalypse  as  having  already  found  their  fulfilment  in 
the  Middle  Ages.^  The  increased  licentiousness,  luxury  and 
carnal  security,  etc.,  of  his  own  day  were  to  him  a  further  evi- 
dence that  the  end  of  the  world  was  at  hand.  He  was  also  upon 
the  watch  for  signs  in  the  heavens.  In  the  first  section  of  the 
ChurcJi  Postils,  he  had  expressed  the  hope  that  a  conjurxtion  of 
the  planets  expected  to  occur  in  A.  D.  1524  might  be  a  sign  of 
the  Last  Day.  He  suggests  also  the  idea,  that  the  end  may  come 
in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  millennium  of  the  world  (his  own  age), 
just  as  the  three  days  during  which  Christ  was  to  remain  in  the 
grave  ended  with  the  middle  of  the  third  day.^  He  warns 
expressly,  meanwhile,  against  more  precise  reckoning  and  prying 
to  discover  the  exact  time  of  the  great  event.*  The  "  saying 
common  among  Christians,"  that,  according  to  Mai.  iv.  5,  Elias 
must  first  come,  he  rejects  because  that  prophecy  has  been 
already  completely  fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptist.  That,  as  some 
say,  Enoch,  or  the  evangelist  John,  must  yet  appear,  is  for  him 
mere  empty  talk.^  In  the  Churcli  Postils,  he  expresses  his  ex- 
pectation, based  upon  Matt,  xxiii.  39  and  in  accordance  likewise 
with  Dent.  iv.  30  sq.,  Hos.  iii.  4  sq.,  and  Rom.  xi.  25  sq.,  of  a 
great  general  conversion  of  the  Jews  before  the  end  of  the  world, 
and  hopes  that  it  may  be  near  at  hand.  He  had  thought,  he 
says,  that  the  new  light  of  the  Gospel  might  now  Avin  many  of 
them.®  We  find  no  traces  of  such  expectations  in  his  later 
writings,  but,  on  the  contrary,  vigorous  denunciations  and  threaten - 
ings  of  punishment  for  their  persistent  contempt  and  blasphemy. 
As  to  the  state  of  the  dead  between  the  time  of  their  death 
and  the  Day  of  Judgment,  we  have  already'  cited  Luther's 
positive  declarations  in  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory, 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  Ixiii,  166;  Ixiv,  256.     Jenn,  iv,  471.  '■'Vol.  I.,  p.  423. 

''Ibid.,  X,  52  sqq.,  64.     Jena,  iv,  746,  746  b. 

*  Briefe,  iv,  463,  474.  ^  Erl.  Ed.,  x,  108,  1 10. 

®Erl.  Ed.,  X,  231  sq.     Briefe,  ii,  451.  'Vol.  I.,  p.  468  fqq. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW,  577 

/>  and  a]so  his  view  in  regard  to  prayer  for  the  dead.  The  state  of 
the  departed  is  for  Luther,  upon  the  one  hand,  a  yet  incomplete 
intermediate  conditio?!,. %i\\ce  the  body  is  an  essential  requirement 
for  the  re-establishment  of  the  complete  human  personality ;  but 
it  is  one  in  which,  upon  the  other  hand,  the  final  decision  as  to 
the  salvation  of  the  soul  has  been  already  pronounced.  When 
referring  to  the  intermediate  state,  he  has  always  chiefly  in  view 
the  condition  of  the  pious.  He  habitually  describes  the  departed, 
and -particularly  the  pious,  as  steeping,^  finding  his  authority  for 
the  designation  in  the  language  of  Scripture.  The  term,  when 
applied  to  the  pious,  embraces  for  him  the  idea  that  they  are 
sleeping  quietly  and  peacefully,  without  tasting  death.  But  he 
regards  this  sleep  also  as  a  condition  in  which  actual  conscious- 
ness has  ceased.  When  the  souls  of  men  shall  be  awakened  at 
the  Last  Day,  it  will  occur  unexpectedly  to  themselves.  They 
will  not  know  how  they  have  passed  through  death,  will  think 
that  they  have  been  lying  in  their  unconscious  state  for  scarcely 
an  hour.  The  soul  has  in  that  state  no  consciousness  of  its  life 
or  faculties.^  Luther  still  teaches  thus  even  in  his  Latin  Com- 
mentary upon  Genesis.  The  soul,  he  there  says,  does  not  in  that 
state  feel  its  own  sleep.  Although  it  is  with  Christ,  it  does  not 
reign  as  does  He,  but  rests.  To  it  m.ay  be  applied  the  language 
of  Isa.  Ixiv  1 6.  But  he  now  adds,  that  the  soul  does  not,  how- 
ever, sleep  as  in  a  natural  bodily  sleep.  Although  its  sleep  is 
deeper  than  the  latter,  it  is,  at  the  same  time,  awake,  and  gains 
views,  and  hears  conversations,  of  the  angels  and  of  God,  in 
whose  presence  it  lives.  It  may  be  regarded  as  especially  char- 
acteristic of  his  representation  of  this  state,  that  he  compares  it 
with  the  condition  of  those  who  during  their  earthly  life  fall  into 
trances.^  Yet  he  disclaims  all  thought  of  gaining  an  actual 
understanding  of  this  resting  of  the  soul  in  its  God.  It  tran- 
scends our  power  of  comprehension.  We  cannot  tell  what  is  the 
actual  condition  of  entranced  persons,  or  even  of  those  wrapped 
in  ordinary  slumber.  He  warns  against  impertinent  questionings, 
and  himself,  in  a  later  sermon  upon  Lazarus  and  Dives,  does  not 

^  Supra,  p.  471. 

'^Erl.  Ed.,  X,  75  ;  xi,  141  sq. ;  Hi,  269;  xli,  373;  xiv,  315.     Op.  Ex.,  xvii, 
125  sq.  ;   xxi,  198. 
3  Op.  Ex.,  vi,  1 1 6- 1 24,  329. 
37 


578  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

enter  at  all  upon  the  discussion  of  the  intermediate  state,  but  at  ♦ 
once  makes  the  application  to  the  separation  to  be  effected  upon 
the  Last  Day.^  It  is,  moreover,  very  far  from  his  thoughts  to 
establish  any  dogma  upon  the  subject.  The  matter  of  chief 
importance  is,  and  always  remains  for  him,  that  the  souls  of  the 
pious  certainly  yet  live,  are  free  from  all  distress  and  temptation, 
and  have,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  in  the  hand  of  Christ,  se- 
cure and  blessed  rest.'*  He  speaks  very  seldom  indeed  specifically 
of  the  intermediate  state  of  the  ungodly.  In  the  Church  Postils, 
he  calls  the  hell  which  the  rich  man  experienced  the  evil  con- 
science in  which  his  soul  was  "  bound  up  "  (verfasst).  At  other 
times  (as  in  the  Latin  Commentary  upon  Genesis'),  he  does  not 
venture  to  express  a  positive  opinion  as  to  whether  the  torments 
of  hell  begin  at  once  after  death,  or  whether  the  wicked  may  not 
perhaps  sleep  and  rest,  although  their  course  immediately  after 
death  leads  only  to  perdition.  It  is  certainly  only  in  the  future, 
at  the  resurrection,  according  to  Rom.  xiv.  lo  and  John  v.  29 
(cf.  2  Pet.  ii.  4),  that  they  are  to  be  summoned  before  the 
judgment-seat  of  Christ,  Yet,  on  the  other  side,  he  cites  again 
Lk.  xvi.  23  sq.  He  acknowledges  that  he  knows  nothing  about 
the  matter,  which  belon_gs  only  to  God." 

Of  a  continuous  moral  development  in  the  intermediate  state 
there  can,  accordingly,  be  no  further  thought.  It  appeared  at 
first,  in  Luther's  contention  against  the  theory  of  purgatory^  as 
though  the  latter  would,  in  his  general  system  of  doctrine,  be 
merely  transformed,  and  become  a  state  of  progressive,  strictly 
moral  purification.  But,  even  in  this  form,  he  found  it  uncon- 
firmed by  Scripture  and  not  required  by  the  other  articles  of 
Christian  doctrine.  The  greatest  importance  for  the  completed 
expulsion  of  sin  from  the  hearts  of  the  pious,  or  believing,  attaches, 
accordingly,  to  the  moment  of  their  bodily  death,  however  little 
Luther  may  have  thought  of  sin  as  still  cleaving  only  to  their 
corporeal  life.  "  When  we  die,"  says  he,  "  then  will  our  sins  all 
be  perfectly  cured."  *  In  considering  the  objection  to  the  view, 
that  men  to  whom  in  their  earthly  life  there  had  been  granted 

'Op.  Ex.,  vi,  1.  c.     Jena,  iv,  315  b.     Erl.  Ed.,  iv,  214. 

2 Thus  already,  Erl.  Ed.,  xv,  351  ;  cf.  also  Op.  Ex.,  ii,  95,  100,  102. 

^Ibid.,  xiii,  11.     Op.  Ex.,  vi,   122,    124  ;  x,  208,  213. 

*  Ibid.,  XV,  50;  cf.  supra,  p.  455. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  579 

no  opportunity  of  exercising  faith  and  thus  attaining  salvation 
must  nevertheless  pass  directly  into  perdition,  he  himself '  raises 
the  question,  whether  God  may  not  give  faith  to  some  in  the 
very  moment  of  death,  or  after  death.  He  replies  at  once : 
That  God  can  do  so  cannot  be  denied — that  He  does  so  cannot 
be  proved.  He  habitually,  moreover,  evidently  upon  principle, 
leaves  untouched  this  whole  sphere  of  objections  and  question- 
ings. It  belonged,  in  his  view,  to  the  secrets  which  God  has 
retained  in  His  own  power.  We  may  cite,  in  this  connection, 
yet  one  solitary  passage,^  in  which  he  recognizes  a  preaching  of 
Christ  for  departed  souls  (i  Pet.  iii.  i8).  But  it  does  not  here 
occur  to  him  to  advance  upon  the  basis  of  the  language  of  the 
apostle,  which  is  applied  only  to  the  souls  of  the  Noachian  age, 
to  any  further  conclusions  of  his  own. 

Questions  of  locality  Luther  does  not  at  all  consider  in  con- 
nection with  the  condition  of  departed  souls,  since  they  have 
laid  aside  that  corporeal  nature  which  can  exist  only  by  occupying 
space.  Thus,  for  example,  he  declares  the  hell  of  Dives  to  have 
been  the  evil  conscience  in  which  his  soul  was  "  bound  up,"  or 
even  "  buried."  ^  When  it  is  said  of  the  pious  before  the  time 
of  Christ,  that  tney  were  taken  to  Abraham's  bosom,  the  expres- 
sion means,  for  him,  that  they  fell  asleep  in  unwavering  faith  in 
the  promises  given  to  Abraham,  and  are  "  embraced  "  {gcfassf) 
and  preserved  in  this  Word  of  God.*  Even  Paradise  (Lk.  xxiii. 
43  and  2  Cor.  xii.  4)  he  understands  not  of  a  material  place, 
but  of  a  condition  such  as  that  enjoyed  by  Adam  in  Paradise, 
with  freedom  from  sin,  security  from  death,  etc.^  We  have 
already  seen®  what  is  his  conception  of  "  Sheol,"  in  the  citation 
from  the  Enarratio  of  Psalm  xvi.,  of  A.  D.  1530  :  "  Everything 
that  there  is  in  the  existence  upon  which  we  enter  (^da  ivir 
hinfahreii)  after  life.'*  It  includes  the  fire  into  which  the  rich 
man  was  cast,  and  the  "  bosom  of  Abraham  "  for  the  pious.' 
What  has  been  said  above  in  regard  to  locality  applies  here  also 
with  equal  force.  Yet,  at  the  same  time,  Luther  continues  to 
employ  local  terms,  such  as  "  the  grave  of  souls  "  {Seelengrab, 

^  Briefe,  ii,  455.  '■'  Supra,  p.  419  sq. 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  xiii,  11 ;  xviii,  267. 

*Ibid.,xiii,  10 ;  xviii,  266.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  ill;  vi,  I16. 
*  Op.  Ex.,  i,  1 10  sq.  '5  Supra,  p.  418. 

'  Ibid.,  xvii,  125  sq. ;   xli,  378;  x,  206  sqq. 


580  THE   THEOLOGY   OF    LUTHER. 

receptaculmn  animarum)  ;  but  he  explains,  again,  these  "  j-ecep- 
tacula  "  as  "  the  Word  of  God,  or  His  promises,  in  which  we  fall 
asleep."  ^  The  condition  of  the  dead  in  its  relation  to  our  con- 
ception of  the  Where?  is  for  him  also  a  state  that  is  beyond  the 
reach  of  our  comprehension  or  speech.  If  it  is  a  place,  it  is 
certainly  not  a  corporeal  place.  Thus,  in  one  passage,  he  says  : 
"  The  soul  goes  to  its  place,  whatever  kind  of  a  place  that  may 
be,  for  it  cannot  be  corporeal :  it  is  a  sort  of  sepulchre  of  the 
soul,  outside  of  this  corporeal  world"  ;  and  again  :  "  What  Para- 
dise is  (/.  e.,  the  '  place  '  of  John  xiv.  2)  I  do  not  know.  It  is 
enough  for  us  to  believe  that  God  has  a  place  {Raum  :  space), 
where  He  perhaps  preserves  also  the  angels.  Things  are  not 
(in  that  life)  as  they  are  here  {^  es  geht  nicht  also  zti').  He  is 
such  a  God  that  He  can  also  preserve  any  one  outside  of  the 
world,"  etc.-  Even  the  conception  of  time  appears  to  Luther  so 
wrapped  up  with  that  of  earthly,  corporeal  existence  that  he  does 
not  venture  to  apply  it  even  to  the  intermediate  state.  There  is 
there  no  time,  just  as  with  God  a  thousand  years  are  less  than 
one  day.  Hence,  also,  it  will  appear  to  the  pious  of  the  early 
ages,  when  awakened  on  the  Last  Day,  as  though  they  had  been 
living  on  earth  but  a  half-hour  before.^ 

Luther  ventured  to  say  but  very  little  about  this  intermediate 
state.  He  quotes  abundantly,  and  with  delight  and  confidence, 
from  the  Scriptures  in  preaching  of  the  Last  Great  Day  and  of 
the  new  world  which  is  then  to  be  ushered  in.  Yet,  even  here, 
he  is  conscious  of  attempting  to  describe  things  which  lie  far 
above  the  reach  of  our  earthly  powers  of  comprehension ;  and 
he  endeavors,  therefore,  in  his  representations  and  illustrations 
upon  the  subject,  to  simply  repeat  the  declarations  of  Scripture. 

He  depicts  the  Lord  as  descending  from  heaven  openly,  visibly, 
even  locally,  or  "sensibly"  {hegreiflich').^  He  vividly  portrays 
His  coming  to  awaken  the  dead  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel, 
with  trumpets  and  shouting,  as  when  an  army  rushes  to  battle — 
not,  however,  without  adding  the  remark,  that  the  apostle  here 
employs  "  purely  allegorical  words."  * 

'  Op.  Ex.,  X,  20S  ;   xi,  302;  vi,  121. 

*  Ibid.,  xxi,  19S  sq.      ErI,  Ed.,  xxxiii,  156  sq. 

'  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  267;  xiii,  12;  cf.  Op.  Ex.,  xxi,  199. 

Mbid.,  344.     Supra,  p.  137. 

•''  Riri.,  xix,  153  sqq.  ;  xviii,  342  sqq  ,  383. 


SYSTEMATIC   REVIEW.  58  I 

With  the  resurrection  is  to  begin  that  kingdom  of  Christ  in 
which  His  saints  shall  reign  with  Him  in  the  presence  of  all  the 
world,  and  all  the  ungodly  be  excluded.  The  latter  shall  now  be 
cast  into  the  real  hell}  As  early  as  1523,  Luther  had  referred  to 
those  who,  Hke  Origen  and  others  of  his  class,  think  it  entirely 
too  harsh  a  judgment,  and  inconsistent  with  the  divine  mercy, 
that  men  should  incur  eternal  punishment,  and  who  would  there- 
fore maintain  a  final  restoration  of  all  men,  and  even  of  the  devil. 
He  now,  and  always  afterwards,  refused  to  give  any  countenance 
to  such  teachers  or  their  presumptuous  notions.  We  have  already 
cited  one  of  his  earlier  utterances,  /.  e.,  that  God,  by  virtue  of  the 
righteousness  (justice)  which  He  exercises  upon  the  souls  in 
perdition,  makes  even  hell  full  of  Himself  and  of  the  supreme 
good.  We  have  also  observed  his  declaration,  that  the  ungodly, 
while  feeling  there  nothing  but  the  wrath  of  God,  are  punished 
only  by  their  own  consciences.  He  warns  against  any  further 
prying  into  the  mysteries  of  the  subject.^ 

But  the  glance  of  Luther  is,  here  also,  always  directed  chiefly 
upon  that  which  believers  are  taught  to  anticipate.  To  them,  the 
terrible  Judge  will  be  a  brother,  father  and  patron.  They  are, 
according  to  i  Thes.  iv.  17,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,  and 
unite  with  Him  in  pronouncing  judgment  upon  the  wicked,  who 
will  stand  trembling  beneath  them.^ 

Now  the  veil  is  taken  away  from  before  their  eyes.*  This  king- 
dom of  Christ  is  no  longer  a  kingdom  of  the  Word  and  of  faith  ; 
but  they  see  Christ  face  to  face.  They  look  openly  upon  the 
bare  (naked)  Godhead  in  itself,  no,  longer  enshrouded  in  words.* 
There,  locality  and  temporality  cease.  "  After  the  resurrection 
we  shall  be  exempted  from  places  and  times"  :  thus  Christ  also 
is  without  place."  Now  is  restored  again,  according  to  Acts  iii. 
21,  all  that  the  devil  has  destroyed  froni  the  beginning,  and  yet 
more  ;  for,  in  place  of  the  childish  innocence  of  Adam,  there  now 

^  Supra,  p.  418. 

^Briefe,  ii,  453  sq.  ;  cf.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  477,  499.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxx,  372.  Jena, 
iv,  482  b.  ;  supra,  p.  277.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxiv,  207  ;  supra,  p.  291. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  xviii,  343  ;  xix,  345  ;  i,  118. 

*  Supra,  p.  423. 

*Op.  Ex.,  xviii,  260.     Erl.  Ed.,  xxxii,  307;  x,  198. 
^Ibid.,  xxi,  199;  i,  125. 


582  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    LUTHER. 

appears  manly,  perfect  innocence  and  complete  glory;  in  place 
of  animal  life,  spiritual  life.' 

But  in  the  new,  perfect  state,  the  bodily  life  is  also  to  bear  a 
very  essential  part.  Luther  is  concerned,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
maintain  the  true  and  complete  reality  of  the  corporeal  life,  and, 
on  the  Other  hand,  its  exaltation  above  all  limitations,  liability  to 
change,  weakness  or  capacity  for  suffering,  in  order  that  in  it  he 
may  enjoy  the  blessedness  and  glory  of  his  life  in  God.  He  is 
especially  fond  of  applying  to  the  transformation  of  the  human 
body  the  apostle's  figure  of  the  grain  of  corn.  It  shall  be  restored 
with  all  its  members,  and  even  with  a  renovated  "  flesh  and 
blood."  The  distinction  between  the  sexes  shall  also  be  perpetu- 
ated, just  as  the  various  grains  in  their  development  retain  each 
its  own  nature,  the  grain  of  wheat  producing  a  blade  of  wheat, 
the  grain  of  barley  a  barley  blade.  But  there  will  be  a  wonderful 
and  glorious  transformation  in  the  form  of  the  body,  just  as  in 
the  case  of  the  grain.  The  body  will  no  longer  possess  the  former 
needy  character  and  feeble  powers,  but  it  will  flourish  and  glow 
in  beauty,  without  sin  or  evil  lust,  eternally  healthy  and  vigorous, 
without  eating,  drinking  or  woiking,  without  weariness  or  any  of 
the  necessities  which  press  upon  it  in  the  present  life.  Each  one 
shall  be  a  perfect  human  being,  and  shall  have  in  God  everything 
which  his  nature  may  demand.  This  body  is  called  spiritual, 
because  it  is  spiritually  fed  and  preserved  by  God,  and  has  its  life 
entirely  in  union  with  Him  {an  ihvi)}  There  we  shall,  in  the 
body  as  now  in  thought,  pass  quickly  from  place  to  place,  as  did 
the  risen  Saviour,  who  in  a  moment  passed  through  closed  doors 
and  was  now  in  this  place,  now  in  that.  The  body  will  have 
sharp  eyes  that  can  look  through  a  mountain,  and  open  ears 
that  can  hear  from  one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other.  We  can 
therefore  travel  in  the  body  like  a  flash,  yea,  like  the  sun  in  the 
heavens,  so  that  we  can  at  will  in  a  moment  be  upon  the  earth 
beneath  or  in  heaven  above.^  We  thus  see  that,  by  the  existence 
outside  of  localities  of  which  Luther  speaks,  he  means  a  freedom 
from  all  the  restraints  of  locality. 

'Erl.  Ed.,  xiv,  159;  supra,  p.  343.     Op.  Ex.,  i,  125. 

''Ibid.,  xix,  133  sq.,  143  sq.  ;  iv,  2;  ],  411;  li,  243,  183  sq.;  xviii,  346; 

X,  74. 

^  Ibid.,  iv,  2  sq. ;  xix,  134;  li,  183. 


SYSTEMATIC    REVIEW.  583 

All  of  this,  says  he,  is,  indeed,  hard  for  us  human  beings  now 
to  believe — is,  in  fact,  the  most  difificult  to  believe  of  all  the 
articles  of  faith ;  for  there  is  no  other  which  is  so  directly  con- 
trary to  our  own  experience  and  the  appearance  of  things.  But 
God  is  everj'where  in  nature,  in  our  fields  and  gardens,  etc., 
constantly  displaying  before  us  such  wonderful  works — in  the 
green  summer,  which  He  brings  back  again  out  of  the  dead 
winter ;  in  the  grain  and  the  developing  blade ;  in  the  growth  of 
the  branches  out  of  the  dry,  bare  tree ;  in  the  coming  forth  of 
the  bird  from  the  dead  and  motionless  egg.  It  is  alone  through 
the  power  of  His  Word  that  this  all  comes  to  pass — that  Word 
which  called  forth  all  things  out  of  nothing.'  But  our  resurrec- 
tion is  fully  assured,  above  all,  by  that  of  Christ,  our  Head.  The 
latter  has  been  most  securely  attested  lor  us  by  God  in  the  report 
of  the  apostles.  Nor  did  Christ  rise  from  the  dead  for  His  own 
personal  benefit  alone ;  but,  as  He  was  brought  to  death  only 
through  us,  so  must  we  be  brought  back  again  from  death  to  life 
by  Him.  If  the  Head  lives  above,  then  must  we  also,  who  chng 
to  Him,  follow  Him  thither.  More  than  half  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  /.  e.,  the  principal  part  of  it,  the  resurrection  of  our 
Head,  has  thus  been  already  accomplished ;  and  that  which  yet 
remains  of  death  is  to  be  regarded  only  as  a  deep  sleep  from 
which  we  shall  suddenly  awake.' 

A  similar  transfiguration  will  be  at  length  experienced,  accord- 
ing to  the  teachings  of  Scripture — and  that  by  fire,  as  testified  in 
2  Pet.  iii,  10 — by  the  whole  exte7'nal  tvorld.  Heaven  and  earth 
shall  be  changed  like  a  garment  (Ps.  cii.  26).  Instead  of  their 
work-day  clothing,  they  shall  put  on  an  Easter  mantle  and  a 
Pentecostal  robe.  Luther  beholds  in  imagination  the  whole 
universe  of  created  things  lifted  up  at  the  same  time  into  this 
new  life.  He  sees  there  a  new  sun  shining  seven-fold  more 
brightly  than  the  present  one,  together  with  a  new  moon  and 
new  stars ;  also  water,  trees  and  grass  far  more  beautiful — 
according  to  the  Tischredeu,  also  new  animals — little  dogs  with 
golden  hair,  etc. — all  harmless,  beautiful  and  playful.'     The  text, 

1  Erl.  Ed.,  xix,  128-142;   xviii,  381. 

2  Ibid.,  1,  410  sqq.  ;  li,  138  sqq. 

3  Erl.  Ed.,  X,  74.  Op.  Ex.,  x,  392.  Erl.  Ed.,  xxxix,  35 ;  li,  243;  ix,  iq6; 
li,  183.     Tischr.,  iv,  289  sq. 


584  THE  THEOLOGY  OF  LUTHER. 

2  Pet.  iii.  13,  sounds  to  him  as  though  we  should  then  also  live 
upon  the  earth.  But  heaven  and  earth,  says  he,  will  be  a  new 
Paradise,  wherein  God  shall  dwell ;  God  dwells  in  all  places, 
and  the  elect  shall  be  where  He  is.  He  afterwards  says  further : 
We  shall  be  where  we  wish  to  be — in  heaven  or  on  earth,  above 
or  beneath.^  There  shall  be  fulfilled  the  longing  desire  of  the 
whole  creation  to  be  no  more  compelled  to  minister  to  the 
present  shameful  order  of  affairs  on  earth,  to  the  devil  and  the 
wicked.  And  there  shall  man,  while  spiritually  living  in  God, 
go  forth  also  through  heaven  and  earth  to  play  with  the  sun  and 
the  moon  and  all  other  created  things,  shall  have  his  joy  and 
pleasure  in  them,  and  be  perfectly  contented  and  happy. '^ 

This  is  "  the  spiritual  life  of  the  entire  man,  with  body  and  soul, 
which  shall  spring  from  the  Spirit  {aus  dem  Geist  eiitspringen) 
and  proceed  without  mediation  {ohne  Alittel)  from,  or  through, 
God.  Thus,  the  redeemed  shall  celebrate  "  an  eternal  Sabbath 
and  festival ;  shall  be  eternally  satisfied  in  God,  eternally  joyful, 
free  and  secure  from  all  sorrow ;  shall  eternally  behold  God  and 
His  works,  no  longer  hidden  behind  a  veil,  but  with  open  coun- 
tenance.^ 

When  I  know  and  believe  this,  then,  says  Luther,*  have  my 
heart  and  soul  already  passed  through  death  and  the  grave,  and 
are  with  Christ  in  heaven,  living  and  rejoicing  in  their  happy 
lot.  We  have,  therefore,  not  only  the  principal  part  of  the  resur- 
rection, but  we  have  already  passed  the  two  best  parts  of  it. 
Since  Christ  vivifies  and  renews  the  heart  through  faith,  He  will 
assuredly  draw  after  it  its  tardy  partner,  the  body,  that  we  may 
look  upon  Him  with  our  eyes  and  live  with  Him.  Of  this  we 
are  certain,  for  it  is  His  Word  and  "work,  upon  which  we  have 
been  baptized,  and  in  dependence  upon  which  we  live  and  die. 

^  Erl,  Ed.,  Iii,  270  ;  xxxix,  37  sq.  ;  li,  1S3. 

">■  Ibid.,  ix,  116;  li,  243. 

'Ibid.,  ii,  243;  xxxix,  37.  '•Ibid.,  li,  140  sq. 


INDEX. 


[The  Roman  numeral  refers  to  the  volume,  the  ordinary  numeral  to  the  page.] 

Albrecht,  Archbishop,  instructions  of  to 
venders  of  indulgences,  i,  224. 

Alla'osis,  Zwingli's  theory  of,  ii,  134  sq. 

Altar  fello'iVship,  ii,  161.  See  "  Sac- 
ramentarians." 

Alveld,  argument  of  for  papacy,  1,363. 

Ainsdorf,  as  student,  etc.,  at  Witten- 
berg, i,  82  ;  inquiry  of,  touching  in- 
termediate state,  i,  471  ;  criticism  uf 
Cologne  fornnila  by,  ii,  1S3. 

Anabaptism,  Luther  s  tract  on,  ii,  48, 
52  sq. 

Aiiabaptisls.     See  "Fanatics." 

Angels,  present  definitively  at  will,  ii, 
138;  creation  and  fall  of,  ii,  324; 
agents  of  providence,  ii,  324,  325  ; 
subordinate  to  direct  divnie  agency, 
ii,  327;  essentially  spirits,  ii,  325; 
original  moral  character  of,  ib.; 
exalted  knowledge  of,  ib.;  mirac- 
ulous power  of,  ib.;  activity  of, 
in  man's  behalf,  ib.;  special  guar- 
ilian,  ib.;  differences  among,  ii,  326. 

Angels,  ei'il,  the,  ii,  331  sq. ;  cause  of 
tlieir  fall,  ii,  332  ;  differences  among, 
ib.;  authors  of  human  misfortunes, 
ib.;  always  near  us,  ii,  333. 

Aiihalt,  begging  prince  of,  i,  33. 

Annates,  i,  376. 

Annotations  of  Psalms.  See  "  Psalms, 
first  exposition  of." 

Anselin,  on  works  of  satisfaction,  i, 
235  ;  on  original  sin,  ii.  346. 

Antichrist.     See  "  Pope." 

Antilegovienoi,  the,  ii,  244  sq.,  255. 

Antinoviianisin,  ii,  496  sq. 

Antiverp,  letter  to  men  of,  i,  499. 

Apocryphal  books,  the,  ii,  225,  240  sq. 

Apparitions,  of  departed  souls,  i,  470; 
of  the  devil,  ii,  333,  334. 

Aptitude  for  restoration,\i\'xx\'''i,  i,  150, 
485 ;  ii,  354. 

Archangels,  ii,  326. 

Aristotle,  Luther  s  acquaintance  \\ith, 
i,  79;  the  latter's  aversion  to,  i,  94, 
'  19.  '33.  134.382;  philosophy  of  ap- 

(  535  ) 


Ability,  human.     See  "  Man,  will  of." 

Absolution.  Divine  auiiionty  for,  i, 
216;  relation  of  to  means  of  grace,  ii, 
521,  525,  532;  embraced  under 
Word,  ii,  542  ;  derives  its  power  from 
Word,  i,  245,  259  sq.,  402  ;  li,  522  ; 
an  objective  reality,  1,259,  262;  ii, 
522-525  ;  validity  of,  not  dependent 
upon  administrant,  ii,  522,  523;  nor 
upon  recipient,  ii,  523,  524;  de- 
mands faith,  i,  245,  259,  262;  ii, 
521,  523,  ^25-,  strengthens  faith,  ii, 
522;  administered  publicly  by  per- 
sons authorized,  ii,  528,  54^  >  clo. 
privately  by  any  Christian,  i,  260, 
277  ;  ii,  403,  522,  526;  proper  sub- 
jects for,  ii,  524;  God  acts  through, 
ii,  527;  imparts  forgiveness  of  sin, 
ii,  522  ;  announces  grace  to  individ- 
ual, ii,  362,  522-524;  a  special 
privilege  under  new  covenant,  ii, 
524;  antecedent  confession,  ii,  530 
(see  "  Confession");  offered  in  many 
ways,  ii,  525  ;  traditional  theory  of, 
stated,  i,  235;  summary,  ii,  520- 
532.     See  "  Keys,  power  of  the." 

Absolution,  private,  value  of,  ii,  529; 
especially  for  the  timid,  ii,  530. 

Abstraction  (mystical).  See  "  Resig- 
nation." 

Abuses,  secular,  i,  385 ;  relation  of 
pope  to,  i,  234,  409. 

Acedia,  not  suljject  for  confessional, 
i,  205. 

Aquinas,  Luther's  study  of,  i,  52. 

Acts  0/ the  Apostles,  ii,  244. 

Adam,  before  the  fall,  ii,  338  sq. ;  not 
righteous  through  works,  i,  416 ; 
not  able  to  keep  commandments,  i, 
488  ;  permitted  to  fall,  1,  496  ;  why 
commandments  given  to.  ii,  501. 

Adoration  of  sacf-ament.    See  "  Host." 

Advent  of  Christ,  the  second,  ii,  580. 

Affections,  natural,  sanctioned,  ii.  474. 

Ag'-iiola,  on  law  and  gospel,  11,  431, 
496. 


586 


INDEX. 


plied  in  selling  forth  Eternal  Word, 
i,  126-132;  on  attainment  of  rigiit- 
eoiisness,  i,  155;  on  identical  predi- 
cation, i,  391. 

Ascension.     See  "  Christ." 

Ascetic  exercises,  benefits  of,  i,  157, 
208,  416  ;  ii,  30,  472  ;  dangers  of,  i, 
158;  no  merit  in,  i,  158,  207;  lib- 
erty in  observing,  i,  35S,  473. 

Assei-tio  oviniiDH  ai-tictiloriivi  (Grund 
und  Ursach),  on  burning  of  papal 
bull,  i,  420;  on  free-will,  i,  429, 
431.  432,  475.  480;  on  chaige  of 
presumption,  i,  433 ;  on  purgatory, 
i,  429. 

Asstirance,  lests  on  promise  of  God-,  ii, 
462 ;  gained  from  Word  in  absolu- 
tion, i,  246,  258;  increased  through 
trials,  ii,  4.60,  462;  may  not  always 
be  felt,  i,  181 ;  ii,  443, 463  ;  should  be 
felt,  ii,  462,463,465,469;  the  I'ope 
declares  impossil)le,  ii,  469;  sins  of 
weakness  should  not  desiroy,  ib. 

Asterisci,  reply  to  Eck,  entitled,  i,  249 
— cited,  i,  249-282  passitn. 

Astrology.     Luther's  view  of,  ii,  331. 

Astronomy.     Luther's  view  of,  ii,  331. 

Atonement,  the,  ii,  49^  sq.;  prevalent 
term.  "  satisfaction,"  too  narrow  for 
Luther,  ii,  496;  do.,  supplemented 
by  "conquest,"  ii,  409;  the  two 
ideas  intimately  blended,  ii,  412; 
extent  of  the,  see  "  Grace." 

Attributes,  divine.  See  "  God,  attri- 
butes of." 

Attritio,  i,  246,  256,  264,  402. 

Augsburg  Confession,  the,  on  the 
church,  i,  366  ;  on  faith  and  election, 
ii,  300;  on  bodily  presence,  i,  154; 
signed  by  cities  of  Soutliern  Ger- 
many, ii.  159. 

Augsburg,  letters  to.  ii,  155,  520. 

Augusta,  Luther's  friendly  attitude  to- 
ward, ii,  194. 

Augustine,  influence  of  upon  Luther, 
i,  72,  73,  74,  75,  99,  103,  109,  M4, 
119,  135,  197  ;  tract  of,  on  spirit  and 
letter,  i,  73,  74,  75  et  passim  ;  his 
exposition  of  tlie  Psalms,  i,  75  ;  his 
humility  in  prayer,  i,  506 ,  com- 
mended for  adherence  to  historical 
interpretation  of  scriptures,  i,  192; 
on  justification,!,  181,327;  on  books 
of  Maccabees,  i,  317  ;  on  free-will, 
i,  284;  on  original  sin,  ii,  347  ;  on 
relation  of  church  and  scriiitures,  i, 
320;  ii,  224;  on  Lord's  Supper,  ii, 
503- 


Authority,  in  matters  of  faith,  i,  27S- 
283,  321,  408,  432,  436,  501  sq. ;  ii, 
222,  223-230. 

Babylonia7i  Captivity,  prelude  upon, 
i,  334,  388-409;  cited,  i,  137,411, 
424,  434,  436,  462;  ii,  43,  58, 
68,  145,  505;  relation  of  the 
document  to  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion, i,  388,  409. 

Baptism,  Romish  theory  of,  i,  53,  326  ; 
Luther's  do.,  i,  356  ;  ii,  4S-57  ;  Lu- 
ther's thesis  of  A.  D.  1516  ujion,  i, 
194;  Marburg  tiiesis  upon,  ii,  57, 
505  ;  objective  validity  of  as  means 
of  grace,  ii,  54,  507,  509;  not  depend- 
ent upon  character  of  administrant, 
ii,  506,  509;  nor  on  faith  of  recipi- 
ent, ii,  55  ;  benefits  of,  ii.  507,  508; 
is  a  washing  of  regeneration,  ii,  57, 
507  ;  personal  faitli  essential  to  re- 
ception of  benefits  of,  ii,  48 ;  imparls 
forgiveness  of  sins,  i,  326;  ii,  508; 
implants  life,  ii,  508;  promotes 
faith,  ii,  57;  relation  of  to  repent- 
ance, i,  355  ;  chief  stress  on  words 
of  prdmise,  i,  394;  ii,  55.  507,  509; 
may  be  observed  by  faith  alDiie,  i, 
351,398;  and  ciiurch  nieniber.sl.ip, 
i,  367,  540;  perpetual  validiiy  of,  i, 
395,  397,  398,  507  ;  perpetual  obli- 
gation of,  ii,  510;  vow  of,  outranks 
all  other  vows,  ii,  359,395;  sins 
and  penitence  after,  i,  395  ;  ii,  355, 
507 ;  compared  with  circumcision, 
i,  396;  an  effectual  sign,  ib.;  ii, 
510;  significance  of,  i,  397  sq.;  do. 
of  water  in,  ii,  507.  508  ;  do.  of  dip- 
ping in,  i,  395;  ii,  508;  mode  of,  i, 
398;  Anabaptist  theory  upon  in- 
volve.s  work-righteousness,  ii,  56 ; 
Zwingli's   theory   of,  ib.;  summary. 

ii,  507-5II- 

Bipttsm,  infant, ana]os.y  in  circumci- 
sion, ii,  47,  52  ;  U)i(in  faith  of  others, 
i,  399;  ii,  45,510;  child-failh  in,  i, 
399,  400;  ii.  46,  47.  57,  454,  505? 
510;  faith  granted  upon  prayers  ot 
ihe  cliurch  in,  i,  400;  ii,  47,  49; 
faith  granted  through  Word  in.  ii, 
47,  50,  57  ;  assailed  by  Zwickau  pro- 
phets, 1,443;  ii-  22,23,  45;  I  Cor. 
cited  for  apostolic  practice  of,  ii,  47  ; 
testimony  of  church  to,  ii,  53;  en- 
dorsed by  divine  blessing,  ii,  53,  54; 
if  wrong,  no  church  for  centuries, 
lb.  ;  dissertation  upon,  i,  355,  360, 
397,  400. 


INDEX. 


587 


Baptism,  monastic,  i,  54. 

Barttch,  the  l)Ook  of,  ii,  24I. 

Basle,  coiivenlion  at,  A.  D.  1536,  i, 
173;  confession  of  (Helvetic),  ii, 
167,  172,  176;  Lutlier's  letter  to 
burgomaster  of,  ii,  174-176,  177, 
300. 

Believer,  //zf,exaltat'on  ("  deification") 
of,  i,  131,  167;  ii,  367,  454;  a 
child  of  God,  ii,  455  ;  likeness  of  to 
God,  ii,454;  present  blessedness  of, 
ii,  154,  460,  469,470;  future  do., 

ii,  5S4. 
Benefices,  bestowal  of,  1,  376. 
Benevolence,  a  fruit  of  fauh,  ii,  474. 
Beravga/;  on    oral    manducation,    ii, 

146. 
Beinhard,  frequently    c\led    by    Lu- 
ther, i,  119;  celibacy  of,  i,  45 1 ,  455 '' 
humility  of  in  prayer,  i,  506 ;  saved 
from  error,  li,  272. 
Biel,  Luther's  study  of,  i,  51  ;  on  orig- 
inal sin,  ii,  346. 
i?w/;()/5,  identical  with  elders  or  priests, 
i,  302,  305,  426,  556.     See  "  Cleri- 
cal Office." 
Bishops,   as    superior    officers,    as    ac- 
knowledged by  Luther,  i,  123,  205, 
302  ;  authority  of,  only  by  human  ap- 
pointment, i,  302;  ii,  556;  voice  of 
congregation  in  electing,  i,  302  ;  con- 
firmation  of,  i,  376  ;    preaching  the 
chief  duty  of,    i.  205  ;  right    of,  in 
appointing  pastors,  ii,  88.     See  "Or- 
dination," "  Laity." 
Body,  the,  government  of  (see  "  Ascetic 
exercises") ;    proper  indulgence   of, 
ii,  474  ;  receives  special  blessing  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  125,  517  ;  re- 
ceives benefit  in  baptism,  ii,  509  ;  the 
glorified,  ii,  582;  essential  to  perfect 
humanity,  ii,  557. 
Body  of  Christ,  the,  created  and  truly 
human,  ii,  371 ;  relation  of  to  Mary, 
ii,  370;  spiritual,  ii,  513;  omnipres- 
ence (ubiquity)  of,  ii.  77,   107.   "5 
sq.,    119.   '35.  145,  377,  379-  386, 
513;  not  an   altertiin  infinitum,  ii, 
140,  380.     See  "  Real  Presence." 
Body  of  Christ,   the    (in    the    Lord's 
Supper),  the  crucified  and  glorified 
body,    ii,    513;    relation    of   to    the 
Word,    ii,    514;     do.    to    elements 
(sacramental  union),  ii,  68,  79  sq., 
146,513;   do.  only  during  celebra- 
tion, ii,  171,  516;   spiritual  flesh,  ii, 
122,    125;     a  seal    attached    to   the 
words,  ii,  347,  350,  393,  503,  516; 


a  sign  of  the  real,  spiritual  benefit,  i, 
340;  ii,  70,  512;  signifies  commun- 
ion of  SLunts,  i,  340,  341  ;  given  for 
forgiveness  of  sins,  ii,  149,  512;  re- 
ceived by  all  communicants,  ii,  67  ; 
(see  "  Lord's  Supper,  reception  of 
by    unworthy");  the  unworthy  re- 
ceive only  orally,  ii,  515  ;  oral  man- 
ducation  of,  ii,  514;  bodily    recep- 
tion of,  ii,    105,   112,  121,    125  sq., 
157;  special  benefit  of  for  body  of 
communicant,    ii,    125,     126,    518; 
also  conveys  benefit  to  spirit,  ii,  126 ; 
the  mouth  eats   for  the   heart,   and 
vice  versa,  ii,  127  ;  adoration  of,  see 
"Host." 
Bohemian  Brethren,  Luther's  relations 
with,  i,  362,  380;  ii,  88,  192,  193 
sq  ;  his  conversation  with  senior  of, 
i,  194;  denounced  as  schismatics,  i, 
311,   355;    course   of,  approved,   i, 
202,    313,    468;     on     puigatory.    i, 
275;    on     cup    for    laity,    i,    381  ; 
on  bodily    presence,  ib.;    on  infant 
baptism,  ii,  48  ;  on    Lord's   Supper, 
ii,  59,  64,  65,  193  ;  celibacy  of  priests 
among,  i,  447;   rejectiim    of    saint- 
worship  by,  i,  202,  468;     Luther's 
preface    to    confession    of,    ii,    192; 
Comenius  on,  ii,  194,  568;  Gindely 
on,  ii,  55;   Lasicius  on,  ii,  61,  64, 
193,  194. 
Bonaventura,  consulted  by  Luther,  1, 

119. 
Brentz,  question  of,  on  justifying  faith, 

ii,  447,  449. 
Bri'tck,  letters  to,  ii,  186. 
Brother  in  monastery,  counsel   of,  i, 

62. 
Brotherhoods  (of  the  Body  of  Christ, 

etc.),  i,  335,  337,  343- 

Bucer,  negotiations  with,  at  Coburg, 
ii,  155,  156;  ^'^  Cassel,  i,  164;  at 
Wittenberg  Colloquy,  i,  168  sq.; 
endeavors  to  persuade  the  Swiss,  li, 
159;  do.  to  conciliate  Luther,  ii, 
162;  letter  of  to  Landgrave  of  Hesse, 
i,  158;  do.  to  Lutlier  and  Melanch- 
tiion,  i,  159;  letters  of  Luther  to, 
ii.   157,  177;  o"  child-faith,  ii,  57. 

Bull,  of  Clement  "VI.,  on  treasure  of 
church,   i,    272,  280. 

Bull,  excommunicating  Luther,  i,  419; 
Luther's  response  to.  i.  420,  426. 

Bullinger,  correspondence  with,  ii, 
177  ;  opposes  Luther,  ii,  183. 

Cabala,  of  the  divine  name,  ii,  278. 


588 


INDEX. 


Cajetan,  Luther  summoned  before,  i, 
250;  points  of  discussion  with,  i, 
266,  271. 

Calvin,  Luther's  judgment  of,  ii,  182; 
tract  of  upon  Lord's  Supper,  i,  191  ; 
ii,  182;  doctrine  of  resembles  lliat 
of  the  Synorai/tma,  ii,  108. 

Campanns,  tlieory  of  on  Lord's  Sup- 
per, ii,  189. 

Canonicity,  of  books  of  scripture,  i, 
317.322. 

Canonization  of  saints,  ii,  360. 

Capacity  for  salvation,  i,  485. 

Capita,  in  Wittenberg  Colloquy,  ii, 
167;  labors  of  for  harmony,  ii,  176. 

Carlstadt,  as  student  and  teacher,  i, 
82;  as  agitator,  ii,  21-23;  «^^  pastor 
at  Orlamund,  ii,  91;  on  marriage 
of  monks,  i,  447 ;  on  baptism,  ii, 
23 ;  on  real  presence,  ib.;  on  for- 
giveness of  sins,  ii,  23,  27;  on 
theory  of  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  23,  26, 
58,  71,  84;  on  lay  preacliing,  ii, 
24;  on  images,  ih.;  on  polygamy, 
ib.;  justifies  violence,  ib.;  mysticism 
of,  ii,  25,  26;  on  means  of  grace, 
ii,  25 ;  on  work  of  Ciirist,  ii,  26 ; 
on  faitli,  ib.;  on  remembrance  of 
Christ,  ii,  27,  72;  new  legality  of, 
ii,  28  ;  on  monastic  celibacy,  i,  447, 
449 ;  fundamental  defects  in  teach- 
ing of,  ib. 

Cassioilonis,  quoted  by  Luther,  i,  119. 

Casscl,  Colloquy  at,  ii,  1 62  sq. 

Catechism,  compulsory    study  of  tiie, 

ii,  567- 

Catechism,  the  larger,  on  infant  bap- 
tism, ii,  54,  56  ;  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, ii,  518;  Luther's  estimate  of, 
ii,  301. 

Catharinus,  Luther  against,  ii,  421, 
423;  do  ,  cited,  424,  426,  470. 

Celibacy,  not  the  divine  order,  i,  455  ; 
commended,  i,  122,  184,  455;  not 
meritorious,  i,  455  ;  ii,  479  ;  a  mat- 
ter of  free  clioice,  i,  45  1, 455  ;  moral 
effect  of,  i,  328,  377;  advantages 
of,  ii,  479. 

Celibacy,  monastic,  \,  447 ;  Carlstadt 
upon,  i,  447,449;  vows  of,  i,  401, 
447 ;  advantages  of,  ii,  479 ;  no 
pledge  of  chastity,  i,  329 ;  ii,  479  ; 
haste  in  forsaking  discouraged,  i, 
456. 

Celibacy  of  priesthood,  i,  424,  446. 

Ceremonies,  subordinate  place  of,  i, 
419;  Lutlier's  dislike  of,  ii,  555. 
See  "  Ordinances." 


Chastity.     See  ♦'  Celibacy." 

Cherubim,  ii,  326. 

Child-faith,  i,  26.  See  "  Baptism, 
infant." 

Chiliasm,  condemned,  ii,  574,  575. 

Clement  V.,  Pope,  and  the  papal  de- 
cretals, i,  299. 

Clement  VI,,  Pope,  the  bull  of,  i,  272, 
279. 

Christ,  as  a  stern  judge,  i,  29,  54 ;  our 
pattern,  i,  173;  ii,  365;  do.,  Carl- 
stadt on,  i,  27;  ii,  415,  474;  our 
substitute,  i,  163,  168,  170;  ii,  391 
sq.,  397  sq.,  406  sq.,  415  ;  only  head 
of  the  church,  i,  304 ;  as  prophet,  ii, 
422,  424;  as  priest,  i,  30+;  ii,  422; 
as  king,  422,  423  ;  omnipresence  of 
(see  '•  Right  Hand  of  God  ") ;  inno- 
cence of,  ii,  401  ;  liolinessof,  li,  39I  ; 
preaching  of,  ii,  421  ;  do.  to  antedilu- 
vians, ii,  419;  sympathy  of,  li,  371, 
416;  resurrection  of,  ii,  409,  583; 
ascension  of,  ii,  385,  412,  421 ;  inter- 
cession of,  ii,  411,  421  ;  doctrine  of, 
as  ciiief  doctrine,  i,  213;  historic 
character  of,  dei)reciated,  ii,  26.  See 
"Kingdom," 

Christ,  oiizuess  with,  i,  168,  285,  414; 

i',429- 

Christ,  relation  to,  as  test  of  Scrip- 
tures, ii,  227,  241,  243. 

Christ,  the  body  of.     vSee  "  Body." 

Christ,  the  merits  of,  i,  172;  ii,  324, 
414.     See  "  Christ, the  work  of." 

Christ,  the  person  ojf,  i,  105,  it)8  sq.; 
ii,  83,  115  sq.,  154,  366,  369,  370- 
388  ;  Dorner  on,  ii,  365  ;  and  work 
of,  as  related,  ii,  365-369,  391  ; 
Thomasius  on  do.,  ii,  413,  517,  559. 
— Divinity  in,  i,  105,  168;  ii,  370; 
humiliated  in  the  incarnation,  i,  416  ; 
'i>  374,  384;  cannot  suffer,  ii,  376, 
380,  3S4  ;  concealed  in  sufferings  of 
the  human  nature,  ii,  367,  401  — 
Humanity  in,  i,  105;  ii,  370;  sin- 
less conception  of,  ii,  370;  devel- 
oped, ii,  375,  385  ;  exaltation  of,  ii, 
376,  379,  385;  aitributes  of,  i,  380. 
—  Union  of  dknnity  and  humanity 
in,  a  mystery,  .i,  371,  373;  divinity 
unchangeil  in,  ii,  374,  383  ;  import- 
ance of  observing,  ii,  378,  381,  387; 
humanity  maintained  in,  ii,  386, 
388  ;  the  person  suffers,  ii,  377,  379, 
3S1  sq  ;  do.,  rules,  ii,  381. 

Chi'ist,  the  sufferings  of,  relation  of  to 
law  and  devil,  i,  171  ;  ii,  394,  396, 
400  sq.;  triumphant  issue  of,  ii,402 ; 


INDEX. 


589 


benefits  of,  i,  285 ;  the  believer's 
fellov\ship  ill,  i,  107;  ii,  406.  See 
"  Christ,  the  work  of." 

Christ,  the  liwrk  of,  i,  1 05,  1 70- 1 74; 
h.  367,  388-424;  Lutlicr's  broad 
conception  of,  i,  269;  11,413;  con- 
tinuous, ii,  365,  389,  411;  as  ex- 
eviplitm  and  sacraiiientuui,  i,  173, 
270,  285,  344,  403;  ii,  368,369; 
as  donuin,  ii,  369;  vividly  conceived 
as  redemption,  ii,  389;  embracing 
oliedience  to  law,  i,  170;  ii,  391  sq., 
407  ;  assumption  of  human  guilt,  ii, 
395  ;  subjection  to  curse  of  law,  i, 
394-396,  408;  endurance  of  divine 
wrath,  i,  105,  106;  ii,  39654.,  416; 
do.,  of  divine  abandonment,  ii,  399, 
402  ;  do.,  of  assaults  uf  the  devil,  li, 
400 ;  overcoming  of  opposing  forces, 
402,  409  sq.;  descent  into  hell,  ii, 
417  stp;  benefits  of,  i,  285  ;  made 
atonement  (satisfaction),  ii,  406; 
secured  gifts  of  grace,  i,  407  ;  Held 
on,   ii,  390. 

Chronicles,  the  books  of,  ii,  239. 

Church,  the,  as  communion  of  .«aints. 
i.  295>  303>  306,  313,  360,  364;  h, 
53^1  539>  557;  under  old  covenant, 
ii,  344,  361,  363,  558;  originated  in 
Eden,  ii,  344;  chief  signs  of  (Word 
and  sacraments),  i,  427  ;  ii.  362,  506, 
538,  540;  other  signs  of,  ii,  541 
(keys),  ii,  547  (ministry),  ii,  551 
(prayer  and  the  cross),  ib.  (works  of 
believers);  relation  of  to  the  script- 
ures, i,  320,  421,  428;  ii,  224,  539; 
rests  on  faith,  i  303,  306;  infallible,  i, 
200,  208,  319,  408  ;  ii,  558  ;  can  ori 
ginate  no  new  articles  of  faith,  i,  316, 
320,  408,  501  ;  medium  of  salvation, 
i,  276,  ii,  540;  mother  of  believers, 
ii,  539;  pillar  of  truth,  ii,  558;  a 
monarchy  under  Christ,  i.  304,  367, 
422;  visible  and  invisible,  i,  364, 
367,  426;  ii,  559;  unity  and  univer- 
sality of,  i,  303,  307,  308,  364;  ii, 
557  ;  holiness  of,  i,  306  ;  ii,  557  ;  au- 
thority of,  i,  123,  200,  208;  do.  in 
ferior  to  that  of  the  Scriptures,  i,  317, 
503,  506;  government  and  discipline 
in>  i.  305,  306;  ii,  476,  533-  547.  S^i, 
568,  569  ;  moral  corruption  in,  i,  206, 
410,  ii,  540,  560;  relation  of  to  civil 
government,  i,  308.  ii,  560,  562;  place 
of  doctrines  of,  in  Lutheran  theology, 
11,213,  560;  summary,  ii,  538-572. 
See  "Congregation,"  "Clerical 
ofhce." 


Church  Postils,  ii,  260,  413 ;  cited, 
passim. 

Church  of  Rome,  the,  hierarchy  and  or- 
dinances of  acknowledged,  i,  122, 
123,  205  ;  should  be  res})ected,  291  ; 
in  Luther's  youth,  i,  28  sq.;  harmony 
with  teachings  of,  claimed  by  Luther, 
i,  99,  228,  237,  250,  278,  421;  ii, 
160,  163;  little  stress  laid  upon  ex- 
ternal features  of,  i,  123,  124  ;  moral 
corruption  in,  i,  206,  410;  neglects 
and  defects  of  preaching  in,  i, 
206;  true  believers  wilh.in,  i,  506;  ii, 
272,  540,  557;  supremacy  of,  i,  290, 
292  sqq.;  infallibility  of,  i,  208,  X78, 
408. 

Church,  Eastern,  the,  to  be  acknowl- 
edged, i,  300,  307;  independent  of 
Rome,  i,  312. 

Churcli  fathers,  fallible,  i,  314,  504. 

Churches,  true,  ii,  538-541;  false,  ii, 
541,362. 

Churches,  national,  i,  376. 

Clemency,  in  divnie  government,  ii, 
329;  in  family  and   state,  ii,  487. 

Clerical  office,  the,  a  ministry,  1,  295, 
362,  415,  425;  ii,  544,  5^7,  548; 
divinely  instituted,  ii,  545!  ^  •'"'an 
of  the  cluirch,  ii,  547;  rests  on  uni- 
versal priesthood,  i,  373;  ii,  543? 
not  a  distinct  order,  i,  372;  neces- 
sity of,  i,  373;  ii,  543,  545  ;  sphere 
of,  i,  205,  374;  special  call  to,  nec- 
essary, i,  372,  406;  ii,  85,  87,  542, 
543  ;  do.  may  be  mediate  or  immedi- 
ate, i,  92  ;mediate  call  to  may  be  ten- 
dered by  congregation,  i,  87  sq., 
372 — or  by  government,  i,  544,  568  ; 
induction  into  (see  "Ordination"); 
local  authority  of,  li,  93,  96 ;  respect 
due  to,  ii,  545,  546,  548;  special 
blessings  attending,  i,  546;  no  in- 
delible character,  i,  373,  406;  ii, 
544;  laity  associated  with,  11,549; 
subject  to  judgment  of  laity,  ib.; 
does  not  exempt  laity  from  personal 
ministrations,  ii,  550;  women  ex- 
cluded from,  ii,  87,  94;  the  church 
may  exist  without,  ii,  550;  concrete 
form  of,  ii,  556;  tract  upon  per- 
verted form  of,  i,  455.  See  "  Bish- 
ops," "  Priests,"  "  Ordination." 

Coburg,  colloquy  at,  ii,  156  sq. 

Collect,  origin  of  tlie  term,  i,  339,  394  ; 

peculiar  use  of  do.,  i,  349,  352. 
Coloi^ne  Constitution,  on  Lord's  Supper, 
ii,   183.    185;    Luther's  indignation 
at,  ii,  185. 


590 


INDEX. 


Commandments,  the  ten,  Luther's 
sermons  upon,  i,  90.  See  "  Law," 
"Precepts,"  "  Decalogue." 

Commaiuiiiunts  vs.  promises,  i,  413, 
416. 

CoDuininicatio  idiomatuvi,  ii,  379,  381. 

Comtnmiion  of  saints,  spiritual  vs.  ex- 
ternal, i,  277;  mutual,  i,  344,  417; 
ii,  415,  529  ;  includes  tlie  imperfect, 
ii,  272;  signified  anci  enjoyed  in 
Lord's  Supper,  i,  335,  338,  340,  342, 
344;  ii,  6b,  67,  114,  149,  521.  See 
"Church,"  "  Excommunication." 

Communion,  prii'ate,  ii,  520. 

Conception  of  Christ,  supernatural,  ii, 
1 10,  122,  370,  520. 

Concomitance,  i,  424;  ii,  68,  515. 

Concupiscence,  none  in  original  state. 
ii,  539;  sinful,  ii,  478:  not  the  cliiet 
token  of  depravity,  ii,  347. 

Conference  at  Basle.     See  "  Basle." 

Confession,  as  element  of  repentance, 
ii,  215,  402. 

Confession,  auricular,  scriptural  war- 
rant for,  i,  242,  357,  463;  Luther's 
conception  of,  i,  357,  402,  463 ; 
benefits  of,  ii,  530,  531 ;  optional,  ii, 
532;  opportunity  for  pastoral  coun- 
sel, i,  531 ;  the  pope's  power  to  de- 
mand (tract  of  Luther  upon),  i,  463; 
acedia  not  a  proper  subject  of,  i,  205 ; 
protest  against  enumeration  of  sins 
in,  i,  204,  264,  356,463;  ii,  531 ;  oc- 
casional omission  of,  i,  357;  aban- 
doned by  Carlstadt,  ii,  21;  treatise 
of  Luther  upon,  Confitendi  ratio,  i, 
35 7>  3'^o>  400 ;  do.  upon  pope's 
power  to  command,  ii,  463.  See 
"Absolution,"  "Keys." 

Confessions,  place  of  in  the  churcli,  ii, 
26;  not  confined  to  scriptural    lan- 
guage, ii,  269. 
Confirmation,  allowed  as  a  ceremony, 

i,  404;  not  a  sacrament,  ii,  536. 
Congregations,  rights  of,  ii,  568,  569 ; 
voice  in  election  of  bishops,  i,  302; 
do.  of  pastor,  302,  372  ;   ii,  86,  87, 
569;  do.  in  synods,   ii,  550;   do.  in 
discipline,  ii,  568-570   (see  "Gov- 
ernment"     and      "Excommunica- 
tion"); do.  in  ceremonies  adopted, 
ii,  553;  represented  by  oflBcial  mem- 
bers, ii,  568  ;  character  of  new  evan- 
gelical,   ii,  567;    the    ideal,    ii,  ib. 
See  "  Church,"  "  Laity." 
Conquest.     .See  "  Clirist." 
Constance,  Council  of,  i,  437. 
Contrition   {^penitence),  as  element  in 


repentance,  i,  215,  226,  244,  402; 
vs.  attrition,  i,  240,  256,  264,  402  ; 
awakened  by  God,  i,  245  ;  begins 
with  love  of  rigliteousness,  i,  263, 
244 ;  to  be  continuous,  i,  246,  325  ; 
accepts  penalty,  i,  227,  233  ;  appro- 
priates forgiveness  of  sin,  i,  233, 
237;  presupposes  faith,  i,  238,  402  ; 
no  confidence  to  be  placed  in, 
ii,  263,  402;  ineffectual,  ii,  432; 
lack  of  does  not  invalidate  absolu- 
tion, ii,  523;  not  demanded  in  sale 
of  indulgences,  i,  224.  See  "  Re- 
pentance." 

Co-operation,  of  man  with  God,  i,  327, 
485,  490.     See  "  Mediation." 

Cotta,  Ursula,  i,  28. 

Council,  at  Jerusalem,  i,  375  ;  at  Nice, 
il).,  299;  at  Constance,  i,  437. 

Councils  and  chiirches,  tract  upon,  ii, 
182. 

Coz/Mi;-//5,^f«^r^/,  authority  of  acknowl- 
edged, i,  278;  Luther's  appeal  to, 
1,278;  ii,420;  fallible,  i,  280,  315- 
317;  not  called  only  by  pope,  i, 
375  ;  subjects  to  be  considered  by, 
i,  206,  372  sq.  ;  contain  laymen,  ii, 
549 ;  not  to  enforce  uniform  cere- 
monies, ii,  554. 

Covenant,  the  A"t-,.v,  advantages  of,  ii, 
362;  particular  in  application,  ib. ; 
spiritual,  ii,  363;  universal,  ib. 

Created  things,  essential  relation  of  to 
God,  ii,  214;  as  media  of  divine 
agency,  ii,  321,  324,  327,  328,  490, 

494- 

Creation,  out  of  nothing,  ii,  321  ;  time 
began  with,  ib.  ;  in  six  literal  days, 
ii,  322;  finished,  ib.;  perfection  of, 
ii,  323;  modifications  of  caused  by 
sin,  ii,  522;  man  the  chief  work  of. 
ii,  324 ;  subject  to  believers,  ib. ;  of 
angels,  ib.;  summary  on,  ii,  321-337, 

Creed,  Apostles',  the,  ii,  210,  269. 

Creed,  Athanasian,  the,  ii,  269,  270. 

Creed,  N'iccne,  the,\\,  270. 

Crotus  Rtibianus,  at  Erfurt,  i,  37; 
letter  of  to  Luther,  ib.  ;  hel[)S 
Hutten  to  escape  from  monastery,  i, 
41 ;  later  subserviency  of  to  Cntholic 
autiiorities,  i,  42. 

Crucifixion,  of  the  body,  i,  226,  238 ;  ii, 
231.  See  "  Resignation,"  "  Body," 
"  Discipline." 

Cup,  withheld  from  laitv,  i,  338,  354, 
381.388,  423,  459  sq.';   ii,  V'5- 

Cyprian,  upon  election  of  bishops,  i, 
302. 


INDEX. 


591 


D'' Ailly,  Luther's  study  of,  i,  52  ; 
upon  Lord's  Supper,  i,  389,  390. 

Dancing,  ii,  474. 

Daniel,  the  book  of,  ii,  234 ;  prophe- 
cies of,  i,  383,  423;  ii,  575- 

David,  a  prophet,  ii,  236;  experience 
of,  parallel  with  Christ's,  ib.;  per- 
sonal relation  of  to  Ciirist  foretold, 
ii,  361. 

Dead,  State  of  the.  See  "  Litermedi- 
ate  Slate." 

Dead,  Prayer  for  the,  i,  470,  472,473  ; 
not  commanded,  i,  472;  allowable, 
i,  470,  472,  473,  474,  503 ;  no  need 
of,  i,  474;  sermons  upon,  i,  472; 
Augustine  upon,  i,  474.  See 
"  Masses." 

Death,  as  penalty  for  sin,  ii,  358. 

Death,  preparation  for,  dissertation 
upon,  on  sufferings  of  Christ,  i,  332, 
344;  do.  on  saint- worship,  1,360; 
do.  on  unction,  etc.,  i,  350,  406  ;  do. 
on  Lord's  Supper,  i,  345. 

Decalogue,  the,  treated  in  Praecep- 
toriuni,  i,  90;  sermons  upon,  i,  91- 
<)T, ;  how  far  yet  binding,  ii,  35  sq., 
495  sq.;  short  form  of,  li,  417.  See 
"  Law,  Mosaic." 

Decrees,  eternal.     See  "  Divine  Will." 

Decretals,  the  papal,  collected,  i,  299; 
denounced,  i,  314;  burned,  i,  420, 

436- 

Demons,  ii,  331-334.     See  "Devils." 

Depravity,  human,  i,  429.    See  "  Sin." 

Descent  into  hell,  the,  ii,  417  sq.,  579  ; 
Seckendorf  on,  criticised,  li,  421. 

Devil,  the,  has  dominion  over  man,  i, 
484,  499 ;  ii,  2>il>  ■;  employed  by 
God  as  agent,  ii,  292  ;  as  Lucifer,  ii, 
332;  inspires  evil  thoughts,  ib ; 
spiritual  assaults  of,  ii,  333 ;  appar- 
itions of,  ii,  334  ;  practices  sorcery, 
ii,  334 ;  all  misfortunes  come  from, 
ii,  332,  334;  relaiion  of  to  human 
depravity,  ii,  336:  Christians  freed 
from  dominion  of,  ib ;  tortured 
Christ,  400,  403;  vanquished  by 
Christ,  ii,  409  sqq.;  held  in  subjec- 
tion by  God,  ii,  292,  335  ;  Christians 
may  mock,  ii,  474. 

Devils,  nature  of,  ii,  331;  fall  of,  ii, 
332  ;  sin  of,  ib.;  realm  of,  ib.;  au- 
thors of  all  misfortunes,  ii,  332,334. 

Diaconate,  the,  proper  conception  of, 
i,  406. 

Dionysiiis,  the  Areopagite,  discred- 
ited, i,  237  ;  ii,  262. 

Discipline,  lack  of  in  church,  ii,  533, 


547,  561,  568.  See  "Church, 
government  in." 

Dispensations,  papal,  i,  379. 

Disputations,  of  Luther,  i,  94. 

Divorce,  the  question  of,  ii,  477  ; 
grounds  for,  i,  405  ;  liberty  to  marry 
after,  i,  495. 

Doctorate  of  theology,  responsibility 
and   authority  of,  i,  89,  371  ;  ii,  96. 

Doctrine,  importance  of  pure,  ii,  551  ; 
elaboration  in  statement  of,  ii,  268; 
do.  confined  to  scriptural  termin- 
ology, ii,  26S,  ;^i^,  314;  relation  of 
to  life,  ii,  551 ;  Lutheran  concep- 
tion of,  ii,  208.     See  "  Principles." 

Doctr-ines  of  men,  tract  of  Luther 
upon,  i,  502. 

Donation,  of  Constantine,  i,  383. 

Donatists,  error  of,  touching  the  min- 
istry, i,  296. 

Donum  and  exeniplum,  ii,  369. 

Donum  siiperadditum,  ii,  342. 

Drunkenness,  government  should  re- 
strain, i,  385. 

Dicengersheitn,  reports  incident  con- 
cerning Luther,  i,  57;  records  testi- 
mony of  Natin,  i,  59;  Luther's  dis- 
pute with,  i,  314. 

Ecclesiastes,  the  book  of,  ii,  237,  238, 
240. 

Eck,  controversy  of  with  Luther,  ii, 
292-317  ;  theses  of,  i,  292  ;  Obelisci 
of,  i,  249;  on  indulgences  vs.  char- 
ity, i,  269. 

Eisenach,  Luther  at,  i,  25. 

Elders,  in  Hessian  church,  ii,  570. 
See  "  Bishops,"  "  Clerical    Office." 

Elements  in  Lord^s  Supper,  reception 
of  by  hand  or  mouth,  ii,  21,  2tZ  \  not 
necessary  to  spiritual  participation, 
i,  342,  350>  393-  i^ee  "Cup," 
"  Lord's  Supper." 

Emergency-bishops,  ii,  565. 

E7npire,  Roman,  of  the  German  Na- 
tion, origin  of,  i,  383 ;  constitution 
of,  ii,  485;  Germansshould  govern, 
i.   3^1)  y  foretold  in   Apocalvpse,   ii, 

575. 
Emser,  publications    of,    i,  293,  421  ; 

Luther's    do.    against,   i,    293,  421, 

425,  426. 
Enthusiasm,  of  fanatics  and  pope,  ii, 

220. 
Eperies,  letter  to  clergy  at,  ii,  184,188. 
Ephesians,  the  epistle  to  the",  ii,  243. 
Epistolae  obsctcrontm  viroriitn,  i,  21 1. 
Erasmus,  Luther's  regard  for,  i,  210; 


592 


INDEX. 


criticism  of,  i,  445;  discussion  of 
Luther  with,  i,  479  sq.;  ii,  475;  on 
obscurity  of  Scriptures,  ii,  504. 

Erfurt,  Luther's  letter  to  Ciirislians 
at,  i,  467,  472. 

Erfurt,  University  of,  faithful  to  tra- 
ditions of  the  church,  i,  43;  Luther 
enters,  i,  32  ;  his  experience  at,  32— 
48  ;  his  studies  at,  ii,  34  sq.,  37  ;  his 
teachers  at,i,  36  sq.;  Humanists  at,  i. 
38;  Luther's  relations  with  do.,  1,40, 
44, 45  ;  confers  degrees  upon  Luther, 
i,  35,  83,  89;  Kampschulte  upon,  i, 
38. 

Ernst,  Duke  of  Liineberg,  letter  to,  ii, 

157- 

Eschatology,  dearth  of  peculiar  ideas 
upon,  ii,  573;  summary  on,  ii,  573- 
584. 

Esther,  the  book  of,  ii,  239,  254. 

Evangelical  tendency,  perverted  i,  442. 

Eve,  comparative  weakness  of,  ii,  345; 
the  sin  of,  ib. 

Evil,  origin  of,  i,  198,  488;  ii.  332. 

Excotnnntnication ,  defined,  i,  335  ;  ii. 
533  ;  efficacy  of,  i,  277,  336 ;  ii,  533- 
535;  not  feared,  i,  283,  313;  cannot 
exclude  from  spiritual  communion, 
i,  343;  ii,  535  ;  designed  to  produce 
repentance,  ii,  536  ;  withdrawn  upon 
do.,  ii,  535  ;  congregation  must  par- 
ticipate m,  ii,  569;  form  for,  ib.; 
Hessian  do.,  ii,  570;  Saxon  do.,  ib.; 
Latin  dissertation  upon  ttie  virtue  of, 
i,  277,  279,  288,  343;  German  dis- 
sertation upon,  i,  335-346.  See 
"  Key,  the  liinding." 

Faith,  the  cardinal  doctrine,  ii.  212; 
Staupitz  on,  i.  65  sq.;  a  gift  of  God, 
i,  108;  ii,  427,^^^33^;  dependent  on 
divine  elecftoh,  ii,  too.  4 Xi^ :  awak- 
ened by  Holy  Spirit,  i,  321,  500 ;  ii, 
433'  493  ;  do.  tiirough  the  Word, 
i,  320;  ii,  224;  nature  of,  i.  Iiip- 
tj6^  ii,  425-435  ;  general  and  spec- 
ial, ii,  427,  428;  implicit  and  exjili- 
cit,  ii,  427  ;  acquired  and  infused, 
ii,  426,  434;  formed  and  unformed, 
i,  99 ;  ii,  435,  443,  446  ;  an  element 
of  repentance,  ii,  431  sq.;  a  personal 
assurance,  ii,  426  ;  a  service  rendered 
to  God,  i,  175 ;  ii,  444;  negative  as- 
pect of,  i,  159,  244;  ii,  31,  425  ;  as 
longing  and  imi)loring,  i,  205  ;  ii, 
437;  positive  character  of,  i,  161, 
163  sq..  178;  ii,  31,  425,  426,427, 
470;  object  of,  i,  170-173;  ii,  109, 


426,  428,  445,  449 ;  rests  on  Christ 
as  Redeemer,  i,  170  sq.;  three  stages 
of,  i,  162;  follows  conviction  of  sin, 
ii,  431  ;  precedes  contrition,  i,  402 ; 
precedes  gift  of  Holy  Spirit,  ii,  446  ; 
after  regeneration,  ii,  44S,  450 ;  with- 
out feeling,  ii,  430,  443,  460,  461  ; 
relation  of  to  intellect  and  will,  ii, 
430  ;  places  in  right  relation  to  God, 
i,  139;  essential  to  benefit  from 
means  of  grace,  i,  246,  265,  266, 
400  ;  do.  in  baptism,  i,  395  sq.;  ii, 
48;  do.  in  Lord's  Supper,  i,  195,  287, 

Z},(^^_  341,  342,  350,  393  ;  'i.  109 ;  es- 
sential to  salvation,  i,  262-264; 
makes  righteous,  i,  97,  179  et pas- 
sitn;  alone  justifies,  ii,  21 1,  435,  443, 
445,  447,  448,  450,  451  ;  the  short 
path  to  salvation,  i,  98,  175;  power 
of,  i,  410,  413  sq.;  ii,  438;  clings  to 
Word,  i,  413;  ii,  426;  glorifies  God, 
i,  443;  unites  to  Christ,  i,  414;  ii, 
428-449  passim,  489 ;  brings  Christ 
into  the  heart,  i,  167,  169,  176;  ii. 
438 ;  produces  good  works,  i,  327 ; 
ii,  450,  474,  475 ;  fulfils  command- 
ments, i,  414  ;  blessings  attained  by, 
i,  165-169;  and  love  as  constituting 
Ciiristian  life,  ii,  210,  212,  443,  452; 
in  extremis,  ii,  45 1 ;  of  infants  (see 
"Baptism,"  "Child-faith");  of  patri- 
arclis,  ii,  36 1;  tract  on,  Fiaei  ratio, 
cited,  ii,  153. 

False  teachers,  civil  action  against,  ii, 
566. 

Falsely  evangelical  spirit,  the,  ii,  19. 

Family,  the,  place  of  in  divine  econ- 
omy, ii,  478 ;  gives  exercise  to  faith, 

ii,  479- 

Fanatics,  the  (Anabaptists,  etc.),  first 
outbreak  of,  i,  442;  ii,  21 ;  relation 
of  to  Zwinglianism,  ii,  19,  42,98; 
do.  to  mysticism,  ii,  25  ;  principles 
of.  ii,  42,  484,  575  ;  violence  justi- 
fied by,  ii,  22;  intrusions  of,  ii,  9I, 
92;  rejected  call  to  tlie  ministry,  ii, 
85  ;  exalted  inner  woni,  i,  435  ;  ii. 
220 ;  resemble  Roman  Catholics  in 
contempt  for  Word,  i,  436,  509  ;  to 
1)6  vanquislied  only  by  Word, 
ii,  564;  active  measures  against 
finally  justified,  ib.;  characterized 
by  the  author,  ii,  24 ;  do.  by  Luther, 
ii,  21,  189;  publications  of  Luther 
against,  ii,  109  sq.,  115  sq. 

Fasting,  not  obligatory,  i,  358,  379, 
464;  useful  for  the  weak,  i,  157, 
208 ;  opposed  by  Carlstadt,  ii,  22 ; 


INDEX. 


593 


proper,  benefits  of,  ii,  473 ;  do.,  pos- 
sible only  after  acceptance  of  Gospel, 
ii,  30;   Luther's  practice  in,  ii,  473. 

Fatalism,  fanatical,  ii,  281.  See 
"  Predestination." 

Favor  of  God,  the,  vain  efforts  to 
secure,  i,  46,  48,  54  sq.,  57,  60,  72. 

Fea7-  of  God,  i,  471  ;  servile,  i,  140. 
325;  filial,  1,  100,  140,  143,  325; 
ii,  471. 

Feeling  the  truth,  ii,  430,  460.  See 
"  Faith." 

Feet-washing,  allowed  as  a  custom,  ii, 

537- 

Fellowship,  with  Christ,  i,  107,  165, 
167,336,414.417;  ii,  428,  541  ;  of 
believers,  see  "  Communion  of 
Saints." 

Festival  days,  too  numerous,  i,  380; 
why  still  observed,  i,  207. 

Field-chapels,  i,  379. 

Figitrative  language,  use  of,  ii,  390, 
409.  See  "  Scripture,  interpretation 
of." 

Figures  of  the  law,  i,  266,  396. 

Flesh,  the,  mystical  conception  of,  i, 
138,  145;  later  view  of,  ii,  347;  in 
the  regenerate,  ii,  121,  457;  disci- 
pline of  (see  "Asceticism");  use 
of  term  in  Jn.  vi.,  ii,  77,  I15,  121 
sq.     See  "  Body  of  Christ." 

Florence,  the  Council  of,  on  repen- 
tance, i,  215. 

Forbearance,  with  the  uninstructed,  i, 
458-467;  ii,  28,  554. 

Foreknozvledge,  divine,  i,  481  sq., 
497;  ii,  283,305. 

Foreordination.  See  "  Predestina- 
tion." 

Frankfurt,  Luther's  letter  to,  ii,  161. 

Frederick,  Elector  of  Saxony,  rev- 
erence of  for  scriptures,  i,  71 ;  hears 
Luther  preach,  i,  'ii, :  relics  collected 
by,  1,  219;  displeased  at  Luther's 
assault  upon  indulgences,  ib.;  ad- 
vised by  Luther  upon  civil  ordi- 
nances, ii,  35. 

Free-will,  defined,  i.  483;  disputation 
upon  at  Heiileli)erg,  i,  284;  denied, 
i,  326,  428-432,  475-498  et  passim  ; 
in  conflict  with  tioctrine  of  grace,  i, 
483,  496;  in  regard  to  lower  things^ 
i,  150,  431,484,  501;  »>  356;  treat- 
ise on,  "  De  servo  arbitrio^  re- 
viewed, i,  480-498  ;  do.  cited,  ii,  216, 
239,  268,  297,  301,  309,  333,  344, 
354,  356,  392.  See  "Predesti- 
nation." 

38 


Froschauer,  Luther's  letter  to,  ii,  183. 

Fundamental  doctrines,  as  held  by 
Luther,  ii,  28-32,  208-215;  moder- 
ate view  of,  ii,  108;  rigid  view  of, 
ii,  189;  special  discussion  of,  ii,  270 
273 ;  reception  of  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, ii,  271  ;  confession  of  as  duly 
of  church,  li,  272. 

Galatiaus,  the  epistle  to  the,  Luther's 
estimate  of,  ii,  243 ;  Luther's  first 
commentary  upon,  characterized,  1, 
293 ;  do.  on  purily  of  church,  i,  306  ; 
do.  on  e.xternal  ordinances,  i,  312, 
358;  do.  on  infant  baptism,  i,  399; 
Luther's  second  commentary  upon, 
on  work  of  Christ,  ii,  414. 

Generatio7i,  eternal, o{  the  Son,  ii,  316. 

Genesis,  commentary  upon,  ii,  233, 
260. 

German  lYation,  Roman  Empire  of 
the.     (.See  "  Empire.") 

German  theology,  i,  94,  135,  144,  146, 
25l;ii,  25. 

Germany,  oppression  of  by  papacy,  i, 
376,  384- 

Ger??iany,  Upper,  theologians  of,  con- 
fession of,  ii,  155;  adopt  Augsburg 
Confession,  ii,  159,  160;  Luther's 
attitude  toward,  ii,  162,  167,  170- 
181,  191. 

Gerson,  Luther's  ojiinion  of,  i,  71 ; 
against  over-scrupulousness,  i,  357. 

God,  as  hidiien,  \,  491  ;  ii,  277,  280, 
292,  293,  301  sq.  See  "  Predes- 
tination." 

God,  as  revealed,  ii,  279-292;  do.  in 
works  of  nature,  ii,  218;  partial 
revelation  of,  trustworthy,  ii,  275. 

God,  the  attributes  of,  Lutlier  does 
not  classify,  ii,  274;  do.  empha- 
sizes the  moral,  i,  143. 

God,  the  doctrine  of,  ii,  274-326; 
place  of  do.  in  Luther's  svstem,  ii, 
213. 

God,  the  eternity  of,  ii,  282. 

God,  the  glory  of,  jirominent  in  Lu- 
ther's theology,  ii,  208;  displaved  in 
condescension,  ii,  286;  exalted  by 
faith,  li,  444. 

God,  the  heart  of,  in  illustration  of  the 
trinity,  i,  127,  I31  ;  revealed  in 
Christ,  ii,  213,  283;  essentially  love, 
ib. 

God,  the  immutability  of,  ii,  283 ;  as  a 
ground  of  confidence,  ii,  298,  494. 

God,  the  love  {goodness)  of,  a  favorite 
theme  of  Luther,  ii,  2S4,  309;  indi- 


594 


INDEX. 


cated  m  name,  ii,  285  ;  his  verv  na- 
ture, id.;  revealed  in  Ciirist,  ii,  303 ; 
immutable,  i,  481  ;  as  related  to 
wrath,  ii,  390  sq.;  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned, i,  493;  li,  277;  treatise  of 
Staupitz  upon,  i,  64-68. 
Got/,  tite  visrcy  [grace)  of,  a  promi- 
nent divine  trait,  i,  102  ;  as  love  in 
exercise,  i,  102;  ii,  276;  a  free 
divine  impulse,  i,  103 ;  ii,  408 ; 
dimly  seen  in  works  of  nature,  ii, 
208;  fully  revealed  in  Christ,  ii, 
285;  displayed  in  word  and  sacra 
ments,  ii.  280 ;  works  effectually 
through  the  gospel,  i,  108;  extent 
of,  ii,  287  ;  enjoyed  before  tlie  com- 
ing of  Christ,  n,  76,  359. 
God,  the  nature  of,  cannot  be  defined 
by  logic,  i,  137;  ii,  375  ;  indicated 
in  title,  Jehovah,  ii,  279;  Luther 
depicts  only  in  relation  to  man's 
needs,  i,  141  sq. 
God,  the  ovinipotetice  of,  contracted 
conception  of,  ii,  278 ;  is  his  essen- 
tial nature,  i,  141  ;  mystical  idea, 
1,481;  ii.  293;  everywhere  active, 
i,  116,  481 ;  ii,  276;  as  related  to 
secret  counsel,  ii,  281. 
God,  the  omnipresence  of  contracted 
conception  ot,  ii,  116,  139;  natural, 
or  repletive,  ii,  116,  139;  do.  vs. 
spiritual,  ii,  282.  See  under  "Christ." 
God,  the  omniscience  of,  ii,  283.     See 

"  Foreknowledge." 
God,   the   relation  of  to  evil,  i,    198, 

485,  488,  499;  ii,  290,  292,  344. 
God,  the  right  hand  of,  ii,   78,  107, 

115  sq.,  141,377- 
God,  the  righteousness  [justice,  holi- 
ness) of,  as  divine  attribute,  i,  103; 
ii,  283,  286,  406,  440,  492;  general 
and  specinl,  ii,  96;  as  threatening 
the  sinner,  i,  72  ;  as  "  passive,"'  i.  e., 
attributed  and  imparted,  i,  72,  73, 
74,  96,  100,  104  et  passim  (.see 
"  Righteousness  of  Man  ")  ;  term 
thus  used  by  Augustine,  i,  73. 
God,  the  trinity  of ,7\.^cx\^\w\z\.  doctrine, 
ii,  311  sq.;  scholastically  expounded, 
i,  126-130;  terminology  concerning 
imperfect,  ii,  270;  manifested  in  the 
incarnation,  ii,  219,  311,422;  un- 
divided, ii,  311;  inexplicable,  ii,  313; 
work  of  each  person  of,  ii,  318;  all 
the  persons  of  engaged  in  do.,  ii,  317; 
attributes  of  each  person  of,  ii,  318; 
analogies  of,  i,  219;  ii,  316,  319; 
summary  upon,   ii,   310-320. 


God,  the  unity  of,  ii,  312. 
God,  the  tmiversal  ai;ency  of,  mediate 
or  ordinate,  ii,  328;  immediate,  ?/;. 
See  "  Will  of  (;od." 
God,  the  will  of,  absolute,  i,  103,  475  ; 
equivalent    to   divine   power,  1,481 
(cf.  "  fate  "  among  heathen,  p.  482) ; 
eternal,!,  103;   ii,  293  sq.;  inscrut- 
able, i,  476,492,  493;  to  be  con- 
sidered by  us,  i,  480;   immutal)le,  i, 
481;    ii,     281,    283;     controls     all 
things  (see  "  Universal  Agency),  i, 
103,   140,  480,  481  ;  ii,   276,   281  ; 
do.  with  relation  to  human  agencv, 
i,  140,    142,  151,429,  480,481;   li, 
276,  277,  281  ;  hidden  and  revealed 
[beneplaciti   et   signi),    i,    491  ;    ii, 
277-292,  301  sq.,316;  always  right, 
i,    476,    497;  ordains  evil,  i,  499; 
relation  of  to  divine  goodness,  i,  491  ; 
a  loving-will,  ii,  2S9 ;   duty  of  sub- 
mission to,  i,  476 ;  decrees  destruc- 
tion, i,  476,  477,  492,  495  ;  did  it 
ever  really  desire  salvation  of  repro- 
bate, i,  477  ;   impels  the  ungodly  to 
activity,  i,  429,  481,  485,  486,  498, 
499;   hardens   the  wicked,  i,  486; 
withholds  renewing   grace,  i,  487  ; 
my.stery    of     should    impel    us    to 
Christ,  i,  478,  492,    499 ;  occasion 
for    Luther's    treatment   of,  i,  457; 
discussion    with    Erasmus    upon,    i, 
479-498.       See     "  Predestination," 
"  God,  universal  agency  of." 
God,   the  work  of,    his  own   and    his 
strange,   i,   143,   189,  257,   271  ;  ii, 
289,  405,  460. 
God,  the  -wrath  of,  furious,  but  mercy 
beneath,  i,    103  ;  expression    of  his 
righteousness,   ii,    284;   protects   di- 
vine   honor,   ii,  290 ;  simulated,  ii, 
291 ;    his    strange    work,    ii,    289; 
visited  upon  believers,  ii,  458,  460; 
do.  upon  Christ,  ii,  395,  398  sq. 
God,  the  Father,  pre-eminence  of,  ii, 

317- 
God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  person  of 
the  Trinity,  i,  130;  divinity  of,  ii, 
311  ;  procession  of  from  Father  and 
Scm,  ii,  311,  312,  316;  related  to 
Son  as  hearer  to  word,  ii,  315  ;  at- 
tests truth,  i,  40S  ;  ii,  224,  226;  is 
the  author  of  the  scriptures,  ii,  223  ; 
leads  men  to  do.,  ii,  220;  interprets 
do.,  433,  504,  509;  works  only 
through  word  and  sacraments,  i, 
117,435,490;  11,44,220,224,489, 
490,  492;    does  not  always  make 


INDEX. 


595 


truth  effectual,  i,  1 18,  196,  487,  492  ; 
ii,  300;  dwells  iu  believers,  i,  485  ; 
ii,  438:  applies  the  law,  ii,  498; 
awaicens  faitli,  i,  321;  ii,  433 ;  the 
sin  against,  ii,  468. 

God ,  the  So//,  eternity  and  divinity  of, 
ii,  311;  as  liie  Word,  ii,  314;  do. 
speaking  in  the  gospel,  ii.  315,  422  ; 
as  lilceness  of  the  Father,  ii,  315  ;  as 
creative  Wisdom,  id.;  begotten,  ii, 
316;  as  revealerof  the  Father,  ii,  422. 

Goede,  Henning,  at  Erfurt,  i,  43 ;  at 
Wittenberg,  i,  82. 

Gog  and  Magog,  ii,  576. 

Gospel,  the,  first  proclamation  of,  i, 
348;  ii,  360;  a  divine  call  preced- 
ing all  human  effort,  i,  348  ;  pro- 
claims the  mercy  of  God,  i,  io8  ;  ii, 
208,  209;  as  embracing  law,  i,  no, 
188;  awakens  penitence  and  faith, 
ib.,  ib.;  ii,  495 ;  alone  brings  life 
and  salvation,  i,  115,  191;  ii,  30 
sq  ;  imparts  the  Holy  .Spirit,  ii,  44, 
495 ;  a  work  vs.  ( >ld  Testament 
word,  i,  II I  ;  speaks  in  excommuni- 
cation, ii,  536;  as  a  "  letter"  with- 
out tlie  Spirit,  i,  1 17;  oral  proclam- 
ation of,  ii,  242,  494.  See  "Law 
and  gospel." 

Gotha,  conference  with  Bucer  at,  ii, 
174. 

Government,  church.  See  "  Church," 
"  Bishops,"  "  Laity." 

Government,  civil,  divine  right  of,  i, 
308,  371;  ii,  481;  callings  and 
duties  of,  sacred,  i,  4CI  ;  the  existing 
to  be  recognized,  ii,  481  ;  duty  of 
submission  to,  i,  186;  monarchical 
form  of  not  essential,  i,  363  ;  ii,  485  ; 
oliject  of  is  administration  of  justice, 
i,  186;  ii,  482;  do.  is  preservation 
of  peace,  ii,  482,  566  ;  do.  is  promo- 
tion of  God's  glory,  ii,  482  ;  limited 
to  external  things,  ii,  483,  570;  au- 
thority of  over  church  in  secular 
affiiirs,  i,  308,  374;  authority  of  in 
spiritual  matters,  ii,  98 ;  do.  to  call 
a  council,  i,  375  ;  11,562;  power  of 
invoked  against  external  aliases,  i, 
372,  385;  ii,  562,  563;  do.  in  de- 
fense of  the  truth,  1,372;  ii,  563, 
566;  Christians  should  participate 
in,  ii,  483 ;  may  compel  church  at- 
tendance, etc.,  ii,  567  ;  cannot  drive 
to  faith,  ib.;  mtrusions  of  upon  spir- 
itual sphere,  ii,  565,  571  ;  opposing 
discipline  in  the  church,  ii,  571  ; 
clemency  a  duty  of,  ii,  487 ;  may 


not  inflict  death  penalty  upon  false 
teachers,  ii,  566  ;  resistance  of,  when 
allowable,  li,  485  ;  tracts  upon,  cited, 
ii,  562,  563,  et  at.;  Schenkel  on,  ii, 
484. 

Grace,  the  cardinal  doctrine,  ii,  208, 
210,437;  intrinsic  and  extrinsic,  i, 
220;  infused,  ii,  437  ;  gives  pardon, 
ii.  210  (see  "  Forgiveness  of  sin")  ; 
universal  proffer  of,  ii,  287. 

Grace,  the  means  of,  not  prominent  in 
Luther's  early  wriiings,  i,  194;  de- 
fended, ii,  41  sq.;  objective  validity 
of,  ii,  54;  place  of  in  ilivine  plan,  u, 
44,  213;  ii,  489;  Goil  speaks  only 
through,  ii,  43  sq.;  prominence  of 
the  Word  in,  ii,  44  (see  "  Word," 
"  Sacraments,"  etc.) ;  as  visible 
forms,  ii,  490;  necessary  forms,  ii, 
76;  effectual,  ii,  490;  iloctiine  of 
affects  conception  of  divine  agency, 
ii,  309;  Luther's  changed  attitude 
toward,  ii,  43;    summary    upon,   ii, 

489-537- 
Grace,  the  state  of.      See  "  Man." 
Grefenstein,  denounces  persecutors  of 

Hess,  i,  34. 
Gregory  I.,  and  the  papal  supremacy, 

i,  292,  301. 
Gregoy  AY.,  and  the  papal  decretals,  i, 

299. 
Gronenhcrg.  prepares  copies  of  Psalms, 

etc.,  for  Luther's  use,  1,  91. 
Guilt,  i,  152;  ii,  349,  395. 

Hardenberg,  report  of  concerning 
Luther,  ii,  196. 

Heathen,  the,  virtues  of,  acknowledged 
by  Tauler,  i,  154;  do.  by  Luther, 
ii,  356;  do.  defective,  ii,  357;  do. 
bring  only  temporal  blessings,  i. 
285;  ii,  357,  358;  converts  from 
among,  ii,  359;  salvation  of, 
Zwingli  upon,  ii,  189,  358. 

Heaven,  not  local,  ii,  152,  579,  584; 
will  finally  embrace  heaven  and 
earth,  ii,  584;  an  eternal  Sabbath, 
ib.;  sure  prospect  of,  ib.;  what  it  is 
to  be  in,  ii,  140. 

Heaven,  expey-iences  of;  vision  of 
Christ,  ii,  581  ;  complete  restoration 
of  all  things,  ii,  581,  583;  temporal 
restrictions  removed,  ii,  581  ;  the 
body  sharing  blessedness,  ii,  582, 
584;  do.  spiritual,  ii,  582;  distinc- 
tion of  the  sexes  perpetuated,  ib.; 
rapid  transit,  ib.,  584;  quickened 
senses,  ii,  582. 


596 


INDEX, 


Heavenly  Prophets,  treatise  against 
the,  ii,  30-155 /^w/'w. 

Hebrezvs,  the  epislle  to  the,  li,  225, 
230,  246,  254. 

Hedge-fuasses.     See  "  Masses,  private." 

Heidelberg  Dhpiitation,  upon  free  will, 
i,  199,  284,432;  ii,  344;  upon  rii^ht- 
eousness,  286,  287. 

Hell,  eternal,  ii,  581 ;  relation  of  God 
to,  ib. ;  not  a  locality,  ii,  579;  fig- 
urative representation  of,  ii,  41 8; 
compared  with  purgatory,  i,  230; 
as  spiritual  torment,  i,  58;  ii,  399, 
403,419;  do.,  endured  by  Christ, 
i>399;  i'>  40i>  4^3;  Christ's  des- 
cent into,  ii,  417  sq.,  579;  van- 
quished, i,   291;    ii,  409,  411,417. 

Helvetic  Confession,  ii,  172,  176. 

Henry  VIII.,  tract  against,  on  Luther's 
confidence  in  his  own  views,  ii, 
445  ;  on  external  usuages,  ii,  502 ; 
on  reliance  upon  antiquity  of  dogmas, 
h,  505  ;  on  cup  for  laity,  ii,  459 ;  on 
transubstantiatit)n,  ii,  462. 

Herder,  his  estimate  of  Luther,  ii,  206. 

Heresy,  has  never  controlled  the  whole 
church,  ii,  53;  restraint  of  by  civil 
authorities,  ii,  563-566 ;  not  to  be 
vanquished  with  fire,  i,  381  ;   ii,  566. 

Hess,  Coban,  at  Erfurt,  i,  38. 

Hierarchies,  the  true,  ii,  476. 

Hierarchy,  the  Romish,  acknowledged 
i,  123,  205  ;  authority  of  denied,  i, 
305  ;  not  essential  to  the  church,  i, 

313- 

Hillary,  \x\)0\-\  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,l26. 

Hilten,  prophecy  of,  i,  31. 

Historical  Books,  the,  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, ii,  239 ;  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, ii,  253. 

Holiness,  general  conception  of,  ii, 
441  ;  of  the  believer,  ii.  441,457; 
progressive,  ii,  457  ;  becomes  mani- 
fest, ii,  551  ;  a  sign  of  the  church,  ib. 

Homberg,  plan  of  reform,  the,  ii,  567. 

Homoottsios,  criticism  of  the  term,  ii, 
269. 

Honius,  against  the  real  presence,  ii, 
62,  64. 

Hope,  relation  of  to  failh,  i,  98  ;  spring- 
ing from  meritorious  deeds,  i,  186 
sq.,  329;  source  of  do.,  i,  331. 

Hosea,  the  book  of,  ii,  236. 

Host,  elevation   (adoration)  of,  i,  348, 
352,  394;  ii,  21,  33,  59,  60,  69,  70,  j 
195.  516,  555  ;   at  Wittenberg,  ii,  33, 
184;   tract  of  Luther  upon,  ii,    49,  ' 
60,  62,  64-71,  loi.  I 


Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  works  of,  consulted 
by  Luther,  i,  119, 

Humanism,  Luther's  sympathy  with, 
i,  38,  210;  benelicial  influence  of 
upon  Luther,  i,  41-44:  did  not  af- 
fect his  theological  views,  i,  38,  44 
sq.,  84,  210;  method  of  warfare  of, 
disapproved,  i,  211. 

Huss,  innocence  of  maintained,  i,  36; 
sermons  of,  read  by  Luther,  i,  51  ; 
theses  of  upon  llie  church,  i,  307, 
437 ;  other  theses  of  defended  by 
Lutlier,  i,  315,  381,  428;  Luther's 
admiration  of,  i,  362. 

Hutten,  Ulrich  von,  at  Erfurt,  1,40; 
correspondence  of  with  Lulher,  ib.  ; 
slight  influence  of  upon  do.,  i,  387; 
published  works  of,  cited,  i,  39. 

Iconoclasm,  ii,  38. 

Identical  predication,  not  available  in 
defence  of  transubstantiation,  i,  391  ; 
does  not  bear  against  Luther's  theory, 
ii,  145-  148. 

Idio/na,  definition  of,  ii,  381. 

Image,  ihQ  divine  in  man,  i,  I50;ii, 
331.  339  sq.;  vs.  hkeness,  ii  341  sq., 
351.372.^ 

Images  and  pictures,  worship  of,  i, 
464;  among  temporal  ceremonies, 
ii,  35;  allowable,  i,  464,  465  ;  ma- 
ters of  indiffeience,  ii,  34,  36;  as- 
sailed by  Carlstadt,  ii,  22,  24. 

Immorality,  at  Rome,  i,  88 ;  gross, 
denounced,  i,  385. 

Imputation,  of  Adam's  sin,  ii,  349. 
See  "  Righteousness,  imparted." 

Incarnation.     See  under  "  Christ." 

Indulgences,  granted  at  Wittenberg,  i, 
219;  proclaimed  jjy  Tetzel,  1,  223; 
archbishop's  instructions  for  sale  of, 
i,  224;  external  interests  affected 
by,  i,  217;  authority  of  the  pope  to 
grant,  i,  255 ;  fundamental  princi- 
ples involved  in,  i,  215  sq.,  218,  235; 
relation  of  to  works  of  satisfaction,  i, 

216,  227,  238,  239,  243  ;  based  on 
the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  i, 

220,  324;  abuses  of,  i,  220,  228; 
Luther  at   first  assailed   only  do.,  i, 

217,  220,  224,  225;  Luther  ignorant 
of  earlier  assaults  upon,  i,  218;  iiis 
difficulties  in  regard  to  theory  of,  1, 

221,  233,  235;  valid  for  the  livintr, 
i,  222 ;  of  doubtful  efficacy  for  the 
dead,  i,  241  ;  only  for  weak  Chris 
tians,  i,  223,  240,  260;  must  not 
promote  carnal  security,  i,  222,  233; 


INDEX. 


597 


cultivate  servile  righteousness,  ib., 
id.;  unnecessary,  but  tolerated,  i, 
240,  291  ;  benefits  of,  insignificant,  i, 
232,  240;  inferior  to  worlds  of  love, 
i,  227,  232,  269,  291  ;  cannot  re- 
move the  guilt  of  sin,  i,  227,  228; 
may  remit  canonical  penalties,  i, 
255,  26S ;  danger  in  proclamation 
of,  233,  268 ;  undermine  respect  for 
pope,  i,  233 ;  destructive  of  good 
works,  i,  324;  utterly  denounced,  i, 
428;  dissertation  upon,  i,  225,  239- 
242,  253,  323;  sermon  upon  abuses 
of,  i,  203. 

Infants,  unbaptized,  i,  153;  ii,  5'l- 
See  '■  Baptism,"  "  Child-fiith." 

Irijiucnce,  divine  upon  man,  general 
vs.  special,  i,  430. 

Innocent  III,  Pope,  upon  independ- 
ence of  clergy,  i,  308. 

Inspiration,  of  sacred  zuriters,  ii,  250- 
257;  various  degrees  of,  ii,  252  sq  ; 
to  be  attributed  primarily  to  oral 
deliverances,  ii,  252;  cooperative 
human  agency  in  connection  with, 
ii,  253.     See  "Scriptures." 

'■'■  Instructions  itpon  Certain  Points,'''' 
etc.,  general  contents  of,  i,  291  ;  on 
dignity  of  Romish  church,  i,  302  ;  on 
adoration  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  i,  466. 

Instructions  to  Saxon  V'isitors  on 
Lord's  Supper,  i,  461 ;  ii,  149,  191 ; 
on  absolution,  ii.  527  ;  on  ordination, 
etc.,  ii,  565;  on  civil  government 
and  the  church,  ii,  565,  566 

Insurrection,  warning  against  (tract), 
ii,  98,  563. 

Intellect  us  vs.  ratio,  i,  127,  15  I. 

Intercession.  See  "  Dead,  prayer  for 
the." 

Intercession  of  Christ,  ii,  411,  421. 

Intermediate  state,  an  obscure  condi- 
tion, ii,  418,  579;  no  conception  of 
time  in,  ii,  580;  a  sleep,  i,  471  ;  ii, 
577'  5^3  '•  torments  in,  ii,  578 ,  moral 
development  in,  ii,  578;  preaching  to 
souls  m,  if,  579;  prayer  for  do.,  ii, 
577;  Luther  reticent  upon,  ii,  580. 
See  "  Purgatory." 

Irenaus,  upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii, 
126. 

Isaiah,  the  prophecy  of,  ii,  234,  235; 
do.  upon  Christ,  ii,  377. 

Italy,  papal  possessions  in,  i,  ^j^'})- 

yacoh,  the  wrestling  of,  ii,  402. 
Ja7nes,  the  epistle  of,  i,  322,  406;  ii, 
225,  229,  247,  255. 


Jehovah,  the  name,  significance  of,  ii, 
279. 

yeremiah,  the  prophecy  of,  ii,  235. 

yerome,  cited  by  Luther  on  exegetical 
points,  i,  119;  on  authority  of  scrip- 
ture, i,  317;  on  spiritual  sense  of 
do.,  i,  435 ;  on  historical  do.,  i, 
192;  on  power  of  the  keys,  i,  294; 
on  equality  of  elders  and  bishops,  i, 
302,  426 ;  on  marks  of  the  true 
church,  i,  306. 

yerusalem,  the  Council  of,  i,  375. 

yews,  the  conversion  of,  anticipated, 
ii,  576. 

yob,  the  book  of,  ii,  238;  the  suffer- 
ings of,  ii,  236,  238,  402,  458. 

yohn,  the  epistles  of,  ii,  243,  244,  245; 
the  gospel  of,  ii,  243. 

yubilee,  the  year  of,  commended  by 
Luther,  ii,  40;   to  be  re-instated,  ii, 

23- 

yudae,  Leo,  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii, 

71- 

J-ude,  the  book  of,  ii,  225,  230,  245, 
247. 

yudges,  the  book  of,  ii,  239. 

yudgmeiit,  the  day  of  near,  ii,  575  ; 
anticipated  with  longing,  ii,  574; 
do.  with  delight,  ii,  580,  581  ;  events 
of,  ii,  581 ;  open  vision  of  Christ 
upon,  ib. 

yudi^ment,  the  right  of  private,  i,  279 ; 
ii,  261. 

yudith,  the  book  of,  ii,  241. 

yustif  cation  by  faith,  Luther's  early 
apprehension  of,  i,  63,  72,  96,  98, 
246,  256  sq.,  285,  327,  411,  500; 
his  realization  of  upon  Pilate's  stair- 
case, i,  88  ;  his  wavering  conception 
of,  i,  76,  328 ;  use  of  the  term  in 
his  early  writings  (comprehensive, 
progressive),  i,  166,  167,  328,  411 
sq.;  his  view  contrasted  with  those 
of  Augustine  and  the  Mystics,  i, 
181  sq.,  327;  first  element  of  is 
forgiveness  of  sins,  ii,  436,  44 1; 
not  based  on  works  (see  "Faith"); 
does  not  always  bring  assurance, 
ii,  442;  relation  of  to  the  means  of 
grace,  ii,  213;  includes  the  entire 
new  life  of  the  believer,  i,  155- 
183;  ii,  435,  439;  cardinal  place 
of  the  doctrine  of  in  theology,  ii, 
211,  213;  summary  on,  ii,  435- 
454- 

yaterbog,  the  l\Iinorites  of,  assault  of 
upon  Luther,  i,  328  ;  reply  of  do.  to, 
i,  293. 


598 


INDEX. 


Key,  the  binding,  private  exercise  of, 
ii,  533;  employed  in  public  preach- 
ing, ib.;  method  of  official  exercise 
of,  ib.;  to  be  employed  properly,  i, 
379-  533.  534.  557;  tlo.  only  for 
public  sins,  ii,  533 ;  effects  of,  ii, 
533-535;  "ot  errant,  li,  554;  not 
final,  ib.;  designed  to  produce  re- 
pentance, ii,  536.  See  "  Church,  i;ov- 
ernment  in,"  '-Excommunication." 

Keys,  the  power  of  the,  belongs  to  the 
whole  church,  but  administered  by 
pope  and  priests,  i,  260,  294,  297, 
303,  306;  ii,  86;  may  be  exercised 
by  any  Christian  brother,  i,  260, 
277;  ii,  403.  522,  526;  a  mark  of 
the  churcli,  ii,  541  ;  a  service  of  love, 
i,  297,  305  ;  a  sacramental  sign,  i, 
363,  397  note;  changes  attrition  into 
contrition  (R.  C.  theory),  i,  256; 
imparts  forgiveness,  ii,  525  ;  gives  as- 
surance to  the  penitent,i,  246,  257  sq., 
259,  261  ;  gives  authority  to  rule,  i, 
123;  does  not  do.,  i,  368;  condi- 
ditional,  ii,  553.  526 ;  not  errant, 
ii.  523,  534;  public  administration 
of,  ii,  526;  private  do.,  ii,  525. 

Kingdom  of  Christ,  the,  universal,  ii, 
423;  spiritual,  ii,  363,  423;  con- 
trasted with  Old  Testament  econ- 
omy, ii,  363;  blessings  of,  ii,  557; 
in  the  future,  ii,  571.  575- 

Kings,  the  books  of  the,  ii,  239. 

Kingship  of  the  believer,  i,  415- 

Laity,  the,  judges  of  truth,  ii,  549; 
should  be  associated  in  church  gov- 
ernment, ib.;  right  of  to  call  pastors, 
ib.,  86 ;  do  exercised  through  magis- 
trates, ii,  568  ;  duty  of  when  ministry 
unfaithful,  ii,  89,  90,  549.  See 
"  Priesthood,  the  universal  " 

Landgrave  of  Hesse,  the,  Luther's  letter 
to,  ii,  165  ;   Bucer's  do.,  i,  1 58. 

Lange,  John,  at  Erfurth,  i,  39;  evan- 
gelical character  of,  i,  44. 

Lasicius,  on  the  Bohemian  Brethren, 
ii,  61,  64,  193,  194. 

Latomns,  Luther's  tract  against,  on 
justification,  i,  500;  on  the  nature 
of  sin,  ii,  348,  352,  456;  on  scrip- 
tural terminoloL^y,  ii,  269. 

La-iU  and  gospel,  clearly  discriminated, 
i,  no,  188;  ii,  209;  the  chief  arti- 
cles of  Christian  doctrine,  i,  30 ;  dis- 
pute with  Agricola  upon,  ii,  495  sq.; 
discussion  of,  1,  IIO-118,  187-192. 

Laiu,  the,  given  by  God,  ii,  232,  497; 
employed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  ii,  44, 


498,  nature  of,  ii,  496  sq.;  its  de- 
mands absolute,  i,  98,  328 ;  an- 
nounces wrath,  ii,  496,  497,500; 
may  include  the  gospel,  i,  no,  188, 
189;  place  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, ii,  496;  through  it  God  ac- 
complishes His  strange  work,  ii, 
497  ;  awakens  fear  and  penitence, 
i,  57,  60,  189,  190;  ii,  30.  20S,  209, 
4985  536  ;  cannot  bring  the  Holy 
Spirit,  ii,  232  ;  cannot  produce  obetli- 
ence,  i,  112,  189;  freedom  of  Christ 
and  His  followers  from,  ii,  392  sq.; 
495,  500,  501  ;  Christ's  conquest  of, 
ii,409sq,;  useful  for  the  regenerate, 
i,  191,  497,  498,  499,  501  ;  propriety 
of  still  preacliing,  ii,  30,  495  sq.; 
fulfilled  by  love,  ii,  480 ;  works  of 
do  not  justify,  ii,  500;  personifica- 
tion of  as  an  opposing  power,  ii, 
405 ;  associated  with  the  devil,  ii, 
^92,  404;   Agricola  upon,  ii,  495  sq. 

Law,  the  Mosaic,  peculiar  conception 
of,  i,  192;  subordinate  autliority  of, 
ii,  232  ;  regarded  as  letter,  i,  113  sq; 
foreshadowed  the  gospel,  i,  I12  ;  va- 
lidity in  secular  sphere,  ii,  22  ;  abro 
gated,  ii.  35,  36,  37  ;  moral  require- 
ments of  remain  as  natural  law,  ii,36; 
civil  do.  not  bmding,  ii,  34,  233  ; 
the  latter  may  serve  as  models,  ii, 
37,  40;  needful  for  the  rude,  ii,  30, 
36;  designed  especially  for  the  Jews, 
ii,  232 ;  adopted  ideas  from  other 
nations,  ii,  253. 

Laws,  civil,  criticised,  i,  384. 

Laws,  ecclesiastical,  ^canonical).  See 
Ordinances. 

Laying  on  of  hands,  ii,  88. 

Lazarus  and  Dives,  sermon  of  Luther 
upon,  i,  472. 

Legality,  fanatical,  of  Carlstadt,  ii,  28. 

Leipzig  Disputation,  the,  i,  292-322  ; 
theses  presented  at,  i,  325. 

Letter  vs.  spirit,  i,  96,  110-I18,  125, 
192,  434;  ii,  259. 

Liberty,  in  non-essentials,  i,  502. 

Liberty,  Christia?i,  relation  of  to 
divine  law,  ii,  48S,  500,  501  ;  do.,  to 
works,  i.  358,416;  ii,  488,  491  ;  do., 
to  ordinances,  i,  358,398;  ii,  488; 
basis  of,  i,  410,  411  sq. ;  dig- 
nity conferred  by,  i,  415  ;  implies 
con.sideration  for  the  weak,  i,  410, 
418;  ii,  28,  488;  submits  to  dis- 
cipline, i,  415,  419;  in  judgment  of 
doctrine,  i,  319;  ii,  549;  abuse  of, 
i,  418  ;  ii,  28. 


INDEX. 


599 


Liberty,  Christian,  treatise  upon,  re 
viewed,  i,  409-419;  estimate  of,  i, 
410;  cited,  i,  67,  168,  344,  349  ;  ii. 
29,  32,  43.  263,  367,  36S,  417,  42s, 

474- 

Licoitioitsness,  the  restraint  of,  i,  385  ; 
at  Rome,  i,  88. 

Lije  of  the  believer,  on  earth  (see 
"  Man,  in  state  of  grace");  in  the 
future  world,  ii,  583. 

Localitv.  See  "  Presence,"  "  Heavenj' 
"  Hell." 

Loci,  of  Melanchthon,  on  divine  sov- 
ereignty, i,  479 ;  on  Lord's  Supper, 
i,  190;  on  free-will,  ii,  431  ;  Luth- 
er's estimate  of,  ii,  229. 

Lombard,  Peter,  maxim  of  concerning 
hope,  i,  156  sq.;  177. 

LorW s  Slipper,  the,  a  praise-offering,  i, 
I2r,  352;  ii,  520,  572;  an  incentive 
to  love,  i,  339,  341,342;  ii,  J14;  a 
proclamation  of  the  gospel,  i,  394 ;  a 
last  will  and  testament,  i,  347,  392; 
a  memorial,  ii,  23,82,  114,  188,  190, 
520;  food  for  the  soul,  ii,  156,  157, 
511  ;  called  a  communion,  i,  335  ; 
public  celebration  of  urged,  ii,  520; 
clinical  do.  discouraged,  ii,  520;  not  a 
sacrifice,  1,352,  393,  458  ;  ii,  512;  not 
a  good  work  (satisfaction ) ,  i,  392,  393; 
no  opus  operatuni,  i,  342  ;  detrimen- 
tal to  the  unbelieving,  ii,  128;  a  sign 
of  communion  with  Christ  and  saints, 

i.  335.  IZ^^  344,  345  ;  ii,  65,  6?,  107, 
512,  521  ;  not  discussed  in  John  vi., 
1,393  >  ii,  77>  '21,  148;  benefits  of,  ii, 
112  sq;  124,  512,  516,  518;  do  ,  for 
the  body,  ii,  122,  125  sq.,  517,  518; 
conveysagift,  ii,6l,62, 102, 156, 178, 
503,  512;  the  gift  of  is  forgivenessof 
sins,  i,  347,349,392;  ii,  75,81,  103, 
113,  149,  512,  517,518;  applies  for- 
giveness individually,  ii,  113,  518; 
bestowed  through  outward  signs,  ii, 
504;  relation  of  to  Word,  i,  195, 
287,  345  ;  ii,  102  sq.,  H  t,  120,  514; 
the  object  of  faith  in,  ii,  109,  123; 
bodily  participation  in,  ii,  105,  112, 
121,  125  sq.,  157;  spiritual  do.,  ii, 
122  sq.,  127 ;  reception  of  by 
the  unworthy,  ii,  67,  74,  104,  153, 
157,  159,  164,  167,  17.^.  176,  190, 
195  ;  taken  with  the  hand,  ii,  21,  33  ; 
separate  significance  of  bread  and 
wine  in,  i,  340;  breaking  and  giv- 
ing of  the  bread  in,  significance  of, 
ii,  66,  74,  133;  adoration  of  ele- 
ments in  (see  "  Host,  elevation  of"); 


faith  necessary  for  appropriation  of 
benefits  of,  i,  195,  287,  336,  341, 
342,  350,  393;  li,  512,  515;  par- 
taken of  by  faitli  alone,  i,  342,  350, 
393;  strengthens  faitii,  i,  351;  in- 
volves tlie  doctrine  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  ii,  20,  82,  83,  1 15,  I34  Sq.  ; 
subtle  questions  upon,  discouraged,  i, 
342;  11,63,68;  theory  of  concomit- 
ance in,  ii,  68,  515;  do.,  of  Carlstadt 
upon,  ii,  23,  71,  72  ;  do.,  of  Boliem- 
ian  Brethren  upon,  ii,  60  sq. ;  do.,  of 
Honius  upon,  ii,  62  sq. ;  do.,  of 
Campanus  upon,  ii,  1S9;  do.,  of 
Zwingli  upon — (a)  general,  ii,  62, 
152,  155 — (b)  "  significat,"  ii,  62, 
64,  loi,  131 — (c)  "alloeosis,"  ii, 
134  sq.;  do.,  of  CEcolampadius  upon, 
ii,  148;  views  of  the  clnirch  fathers 
upon,  ii,  129;  Large  Confession  upon, 
ii,  115,  130-15  I,  391  ;  Sliortdo.  upon, 
ii,  188,  194;  Melanchthon's  Loci 
upon  ii.rgo;  the  Cologne  Constitution 
upon,  li,  185;  the  Wittenberg  Re- 
formation upon,  ii,  191 ;  the  Tetra- 
politan  Confession  upon,  ii,  155 ; 
the  Augsburg  ministers  upon,  ii, 
164,  170;  Dieckhoff  upon,  i,  341; 
ii,  23  ;  Luther's  view  briefly  stated, 
ii,  150,  163;  do.,  merely  suggestive, 
ii,  120,  142;  first  intimations  of  do  i, 
350;  do.,  maintained  with  fidelity, 
ii,  63;  discussion  of  Scripture  pass- 
ages quoted  against  do.,  ii,  64,  66, 
74,  77,  II  r,  115,  121;  summary 
upon,  ii,  511-521.  See  "  Body  of 
Christ,"  "  Real  Presence,"  "  Words 
of  Institution." 
Lorif  s  Slipper,  Works  of  Luther  upoti 
the:  on  preparation  for  the  sacra- 
ment, i,  276,  287,  ^44,  357;  ii,  76; 
of  the  most  wortiiy  sacrament  of  the 
holy  true  body  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
brotherhoods,  i,  335-346,  349,  354, 
355;  ii,  65,  149,  518;  of  the  new 
testament,  i.  e.,  of  the  holy  mass,  i, 
34'i-354,  355,  359,  361.  395;  expla- 
nation of  certain  articles  in  the  dis- 
sertation upon  the  holy  sacrament,  i, 
354;  prehule  upon  the  Babylonian 
captivity  (see  "Bab.  Capt.") ;  of 
both  elements  of  the  sacrament,  etc., 
i,  442;  ii,  67,  460;  of  the  abuse  of 
the  sacrament,  i,  457,  470;  ii,  68, 
73,  86;  of  the  abrogation  of  private 
masses,  {,457;  of  the  adoration  of 
the  sacrament,  ii,  49,  60,  62,  64-71, 
loi ;    Large    Confession    upon   the 


6oo 


INDEX. 


Lord's  Supper,  ii,  83,  115,  130-151, 
201;  Sliort  do.,  ii,  188,  194;  pre- 
face to  the  SyHgrainvia,  ii,  lOi;; 
of  the  sacrament  of  tlie  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  against  the  fanatics, 
ii,  109-114,  140;  that  tliese  words, 
this  is  my  body,  etc.,  stand  fast, 
against  the  fanatics,  ii,  1 15-130, 
140;  of  hedge -masses  and  conse- 
cration of  priests,  ii,  161;  Lutiier 
on  his  book  upon  hedge  masses, 
ib.;  the  German  mass,  ii,  555,  561. 
Loiivaiii,  reply  to    theologians  at,  ii, 

195- 

Love  of  God,  the.     See  "  God." 

Love  of  neighboj',  a  characteristic  of 
the  new  life,  i,  183  sq.,  416;  li, 
418,  455,  474:  makes  god-like,  i, 
416 ;  ii,  455  ;  endures  injuries,  i, 
186;  ii,  210,  212,  4S7  ;  fuifdls  the 
law,  i,  183;  ii,  210,  488;  embraces 
all  men,  i,  183  ;  serves  in  little  things, 
ib.;  consists  in  renunciation  (mysti- 
cal idea)  ib.;  leaves  no  room  for 
works  of  superogation,  i,  235  ;  works 
of,  as  relateii  to  indulgences,  i,  236. 

Love  of  righteousness.,  repentance  be 
gins  with,  i,  68,  163  sq  ,  324 ;  ii, 
431 ;  treatise  of  Staupiiz  on,  i,  64-6S. 

Love  to  God,  its  relation  to  faith,  i,  99 ; 
162  sq.,  418;  ii,443;  repentance  be- 
gins with,  i,  68,  163  sq.;  more  than 
delight  in  divine  gifts,  i,  139  ;  prime 
element  of  the  believer's  life,  ii,  470. 

Luke,  the  gospel  of,  ii,  243. 

Luther,  John,  character  of,  i,  26; 
principles  of,  i,  30;  relation  of  to 
the  cluirch,  i,  31 ;  comment  of  upon 
his  son's  supposed  miraculous  call 
to  the  monastery,  i,  55- 

Luther,  Martin,  childhood  of,  i,  25  ; 
parents  of,  i,  26,  31  ;  at  school,  i,  27, 
32,  33  ;  kindness  of  Ursula  Cotta  to, 
i.  28 ;  influenced  by  the  religious 
life  of  the  age,  i,  28  sq,;  enters  Er- 
furt university,  i,  34;  studies  classi- 
cal authors,  i,  35,  37,  38  ;  observes 
contents  rather  than  form  of  do.,  i, 
35,  38,  41  ;  receives  academic  de- 
grees, i,  35,  83.  89 ;  influence  of 
Wesel  upon,  i,  35;  do  of  'I'rutivet- 
terand  Grefenstein,i,  136;  do.  of  hu- 
manism, i,  38  sq.;  confidence  of  in 
the  church,  i,  45 ;  do  shaken,  i, 
123,  124,  199  ;  inner  religious  life  of 
at  university,  i,  46,  47  ;  enters  mon- 
astery, i,  47 ;  reasons  of  for  the 
step,  i,  49 ;   fidelity  of  in  monastic 


duties,  i,  50,  59,  69,  73;  finds 
sermons  of  Huss,  i,  51  ;  studies 
scholastic  authors,  i,  51,  80;  influ- 
ence of  do.  upon,  i,  52;  his  distress 
of  mind,  1,52-63;  prays  to  saints, 
i'  47>  57.  121  ;  his  dread  of 
Christ,  i,  55  ;  ordained  priest,  ib.; 
his  sense  of  responsibility,  i,  56; 
worried  upon  predestination,  i,  57; 
receives  aid  from  the  scriptures,  i, 
61  ;  do.  from  Christian  brethren,  i, 
62,  63;  do.  from  Staupiiz,  i,  64; 
studies  St.  Paul  and  Augustine,  i, 
72,  75;  his  viewsof  divine  righteous- 
ness, i,  72,  76 ;  calletl  to  Witten- 
berg, i,  79  ;  teaches  philosophy,  ib.; 
aversion  of  to  Romisii  teachings, 
;,  81  ;  associates  of,  at  Wittenberg,  i, 
82,  83;  preaches,  i,  83;  studies 
Greek  and  Hebrew,  i,  84;  journey 
of  to  Rome,  1,84-88  ;  publisiies  first 
work,  i,  89 ;  lectures  upon  Psalms 
and  Romans,  i,  89-93 1  preaches 
upon  pericopes  and  decalogue,  i,  93; 
expounds  the  Lord's  Prayer,  ib.;  en- 
gages in  disputations,  i,  94  ;  pub- 
lishes "  German  Theology,''  ib.;  nu- 
merous letters  of,  ib.;  his  first  ex- 
position of  the  Psalms,  i,  95-1 19;  his 
early  teaching  against  indulgences, 
i,  218-226:  pulilislies  9^  tlieses,  i, 
225  ;  his  general  position  at  this  time, 
i,  285  sq  ;  contemporaneous  deliver- 
ances of,  i,  23C-247  ;  teaching  of  in 
1518,  i,  248-288;  negotiations  of 
with  Miltitz,  i,  289  sq.,  409;  contro- 
versy of  with  Kck,  i,  292  sq.;  pub- 
lications of  1519  and  1520  upon 
Lord's  Supper  and  cluircli,  i,  334— 
369 ;  three  great  reformatory  writ- 
ings of,  i,  369-419;  further  pub- 
lications of  in  this  period,  i,  420, 
435  ;  his  defiance  of  the  pope,  i,  370 ; 
excomnumicated,  i,  419;  appeals  to 
a  general  council,  i,  420;  defends 
himself  against  charge  of  presump- 
tion, i,  433;  ii,  96;  do.  of  incon- 
sistencv,  i,  446;  at  the  Wartlnirg,  i, 
441  ;  further  opposition  of  against 
the  Romish  Church,  i,  441-511  ; 
complete  emancipation  of  from  do., 
i,  445  ;  leniency  of  toward  Bohemian 
Brethren  and  Upper  German  and 
Sw  iss  theologians,  ii,  59,  61,  63,  108, 
157,  162-193;  refuses  compromise 
with  do.,  ii,  163  ;  persistent  hostility 
of  toward  sacramentarians,  ii,  56,  62, 
65,    75,    100,    129-134,    151,    160, 


INDEX. 


60  r 


I0J-189,  194,  195;  reported  aban- 
donment of  his  own  (iocirine  upon 
the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  184;  threat- 
ened breach  with  Melanchthon,  i, 
184,  1S6,  188,  189;  objects  to  pub- 
lication of  his  wriiiiigs,  ii,  301 ;  longs 
for  heaven,  ii,  574;  dcaih  of,  ii,  196. 
See  "  Luther,  the  man,"  etc. 
Luther,  coininentaries  of 

Upon   the    Decalogue  (sermons),  i, 

38,  91,  93  et  passim  ;  ii,  38  do. 
Upon  Exodus,  i,  498  ;  ii,  37,  38,  83, 

92. 
Upon    Galatians   (Smaller,  1519),  i, 

285,  293  et  passim  ;   ii,   47   do.  ; 

dedication  of,  i,  371  ;  preface  to, 

i,  384. 
Upon   Galatians    (Larger,  1535),  ii, 

400  et  passim. 
Upon  Genesis,  ii,  37,  207  et  passim. 
Upon  Joel,  ii,  518. 
Upon  fohn,  gospel  of,  ii,  429,  cited. 
Upon  Jolm,  epistle  and  gospel   of, 

ii,  446. 
Upon  Jonah,  ii,  417. 
Upon  Lord's  Prayer,  i,  93,  191,  195, 

196,  198. 
Upon  I  Peter,  iii,  18;  ii,  419. 
Upon    Psalms   (Annotations),  i,   73, 

89,  90,  91,  92,  95-124  et  passim  ; 
ii,  233  do. 

Upon    Psalms  (Operationes),   i,   74, 

90,  92,  137  ft  passim  ;  ii,  263  do. 
Upon  Psalms,  the  penitential,  i,  74, 

91,  93,  168,  193,  210. 

Upon   Romans,  i,  89,  90,  124,  470, 

500  ;  preface  to  do.,  i,  497  ;  ii,  446, 

450. 
Littkci;   letter   of,  in    sympathy    with 

Reuchlin,  i,  84. 
do.  for  Truttvetter,  i,  133. 
do.  to  pope,  i,  249  ;  do.,  i,  290;  do., 

i,  409- 
do.  to  Minorites  of  Juterbog,  i,  293, 

328. 
do.    to    Melanchthon,    i,   458,   41:9, 

460  ;  do.,  ii,  45. 
do.  to  Erfurt,  i,  467,  /172. 
do.  to  Plans  of  Kechenberg,  1,  477. 
do.  to  Antwerp,  i,  499. 
do.  to  Spalatin,  i,  310 ;   do.,  ii,  47. 
do.  to  Speratus,  ii,  59;  do.,  ib.,  67. 
do.  of  June  13,  1522,  ii,  68. 
do.  criticising  Zwingli,  ii,  lOO. 
do,  to  the  Council  of  Prague,  ii,  85- 

do.    to    Strassburg,   ii,    62;    do.,    ii, 
loi,  115,  156. 


Luther,  letter  of,  to  Augsburg,  ii,  155  ; 
ii,  520. 
do.  to   Duke   Ernst  of  Liineberg,  ii, 

I57- 

do.  to  Bucer,  ib.;  do.  ii,  177. 

do.  to  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  li,  165. 

do.  to  Burgomaster  of  Basle,  ii,  174— 

176,  300;  do.,  ii,  177. 
do.  to  Duke  of  Prussia,  ii,  178. 
do.  to  Venetians,  ii,  183  ;  do.,  ii,  184, 

190,  191. 
do.    to   Clergy  of  Eperies,   ii,    1S4, 

188. 
do.  to  Briick,  ii,  186. 
do.  to  Augusta,  ii,  194. 
do.  to  Count  of  Mansfeld,  ii,  296. 
Luther,    letters    of,    value    of,    i,    914; 
edited  by  De   Wette,   cited,  i,  27  et 
passim  :  ii,    24  et  passim  ;  edited  by 
Seidemann,  cited,  i,  58,  59;  ii,  193, 

419- 

Luther,  preface    to    Latin    loorks  of 
(1522),  ii,  229,  244,  245,  246,  247  ; 

do.  (1545)'  ii.  190- 
Luther,  sermons  of 

Upon  pericopes,  two  series,  i,  93. 

Eight  at  Wittenberg,  on  monastic 
vows,  i,  4t;3. 

At  Weimar,  on  prayer  for  the  dead, 
i,  472;  on  unive^'sal  priesthood, 
ii,  90;  on  miracles,  ii,  330 ;  on 
civil  authority,  ii,  482 ;  on  day  of 
judgment,  ii,  575.  ^ 

On  Jn.  V.  4,  for  Propst,  of  Litzkia,  i, 

94- 

Ot  St.  Martin's  Day,  1515,  on  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture,  i,  125. 

Of  Christmas,  1515,  on  wings  of  the 
hen,  i,  126,  151 

Of  Christmas,  15 15,  on  Eternal 
Word,  i,  126-132,  140,  167,  168, 
169,    187,  191,  196;  ii,  203,  313, 

314- 

Of  St.  Stephen's  Day,  i5l5,on  rela- 
tion to  God,  i,  138;  do  to  Cliri.st, 
i,  170  ;  on  human  inability,!,  I47, 
148,  152;  on  persecution,  i,  209. 

Of  Easter,  15 15,  on  Samson's  riddle, 
i,  171,  188,  192. 

Of  Assumption  Day,  i5i6,on  divine 
agency,  i,  140,  197. 

Of  Day  of  Circumcision,  on  grace 
and  works,  i,  155,  157. 

Of  Bartholomew's  Day,  on  grace 
and  works,  i,  156. 

Of  mil  and  14th  .Sundays  after 
Trinity,  on  hope  and  meritorious 
deeds,  i,  156,  157. 


6o2 


INDEX. 


Luther^  sermons  of 

Of  St.  Andrew's  Day,  on  leaving 
nets,  i,  159,  162,  163. 

Of  St.  Laurentiiis"  Day,  1516,  on 
sufferings  of  Christ,  i,  172,  173. 

Upon  Snach  xv.  I,  2,  on  chnging  to 
Ciirist,  i,  177. 

Of  15 15,  upon  fear  of  God,  on 
monastic  exercises,  i,  185. 

Of  Second  Sunday  in  Advent,  1516, 
on  law  and  g(jspel,  i,  18S,  191, 
192;  ii,  259;  on  saLnt-worship,  i, 
466,  469. 

Of  St.  Thomas'  Day,  1516,  on  God's 
own  and  strange  \\ork,  i,  188. 

Of  Epiphany  Sunday,  1517,  on  di- 
vine agency  in  tlie   Wonl,  i,    196. 

Of  St  James'  Day,  1517,  at  Dresden, 
on  forcordniation,  i,  197. 

Of  Day  of  St.  I'ettr's  chains,  1516, 
on  aiitliority  of  clergv,  i,  2C0. 

Of  1 5 16,  on  narrative  of  resurrection, 
i,  201 

Of  Tenth  Sunday  after  Trinity,  15 16. 
on  indulgences,  i,  203,  205,  220, 
225,  229,  238. 

Of  St.  Matthias'  Day,  15 17,  on  in- 
dulgence;;,  i,  220.  222,  240. 

Of  Oct.  3 1 , 1 5 1 7,  at  Wittenberg,  on  re- 
pentance, 225,  239.  242-244, 247. 

Of  Maundy  Thursday,  l5l5.on  pre- 
paration for  sacrament,  i,  276,  287, 

344;  ii,  76. 
Of  1 5 18,  on  two-fold  and  three-fold 

righteousness,  i,  2S5. 
Of  Day  of  Three  Kings,  on    monas- 
tic vows,  i,  451. 
Of  New  Year's    Day,  on   monastic 

vows,  i,  456,  470. 
Of   Day    of  John    the    Baptist,    on 

saint-worship,  i,   467. 
Of    1522,  on  saint-worship,  i,  468. 
Of  Christmas,  1522,  on  purgatory,  i, 

471 ;  employing  mystical  express- 
ions, ii,  42";. 
Upon    Lazarus  and   Dives   (Churcli 

Postils),  on  prayer  for  the  dead,  i, 

472. 
Of  All  Saints'  Day,  on  prayer  for  the 

dead,  1,472. 
Upon  Dives  (House-Postils),  silent 

on  purgatory,  i,  474. 
Of  Church  Postils  upon   Matt,  xxiii, 

37,  on  freedom  of  will,  i,  477. 
Of.   Third     Sunday     in      Epiphany, 

1522,  on  infant   liaptism,  ii,  48. 
Of  Nmeteenth  Sunday  after  Trinity, 

on  fiiith  of  sponsors,  ii,  49. 


Luther,  sermons  of 

Of  Eighth   Sunday  after  Trinity,  on 

call  to  ministry,  ii,  92. 
Of  St.    Andrew's    Day,   on    call  to 

ministry,  li,  92. 
Upon  Jn.  iii,  1-15  in  Church  Postils, 

on  Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 

ii,  118;  substitute  for, /^. 
Of  January  17,  1846,  against  sacra- 

mentarians,  ii,  195. 
Of  Christmas  in  Church   Postils,  on 

Epistle  to  Hebrews,  ii,  246;  do.,  ib. 
Of  '537,  on  Epistle  to  Hebrews,  ii, 

246. 
Of  Second  Sunday  in  Epiphany,  on 

O.  T.  prophets,  ii,  249. 
Of  House  Postils,  on  free  grace,  ii, 

289. 
Of  Church  Postils,   on    immaculate 

conception,  ii,  358,  359. 
Of  1 5 18,  on  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 

i,  2S5  ;  ii,  368. 
Of  Good  Friday,  1522,  on  tlie  suffer- 
ings of  Ciuist,  ii,  368 
Of    1525,  upon  tlie   humiliation  of 

Christ,  ii,  374,  377. 
Of  St.  James'  Day  (before  1525),  on 

relation  of  two  natures  in  Ciirist, 

ii,  375- 
Of  House   Postils,  on    descent  into 

hell,  ii,  418. 
Of  Torgau,   1533,    on  descent    into 

hell,  ib. 
Lii/her,  the  man  and  his  teaching, 
characterized  by  tlie  author,  i,  77  ; 
ii,  202-217;  ^o-  l^y  Herder,  ii,  206; 
speculative  capacity, ii,' 203;  lack  of 
systematizing  talent,  i,  136;  ii,  204; 
doctrinal  views  permeate  all  his 
vcritings,  ii,  207  ;  cardinal  points  of 
do.,  ii,  208-214;  glory  of  God  ex- 
alted as  truly  as  in  the  Reformed 
system,  i,  138;  ii,  208;  no  attempt 
to  cover  the  whole  field  of  tlieology, 
ii,  206  ;  right  to  advance  maintained, 
11,496;  practical  tendency  apparent, 
i,  137;  (iistaste  for  ceremonies,  ii, 
555;  caution  in  outward  reforms,  i, 
418;  ii,  33.  184,555;  no  peculiar 
talent  fur  practical  organization,  ii, 
571  ;  claims  accord  with  the  church, 
i,  160,  163,  22S,  237;  250,  278,  421  ; 
appeals  to  ancient  fathers,  i,  24I, 
250;  relies  upon  the  Scriptures,  i, 
118,  237,  242,  278,  281.  282,  407. 
Lyra,  works  of,  consulted  by  Luther, 
i,  119;  an  autliority  in  philology,  i, 
321. 


INDEX. 


603 


Maccabees,  the  books  of  llie  ii,  317; 
first  book  of,  ii,  317;  second  book 
of,  ii,  240,  241. 

Ma^^dcburg,  Luilier  at,  i,  27 

Majesty,  tlie  divine.     See  "  God." 

Man,  the  cliief  work  of  creation,  ii, 
324;  fundamental  relation  of  to 
God,  i,  138;  ii,  214;  do.  is  a  moral 
relation,  i,  142;  the  outward  and 
the  inward,  i,  41 1. 

Man,  ill  the  origitial  siaie,  bore  divine 
image,  ii,  338,  341,  372;  possessed 
a  right  will,  ii,  339,  357 ;  do. 
directly  subject  to  divine  will,  11,3^4; 
had  no  actual  ability  to  do  good,  i, 
284 ;  had  true  knowledge  of  God,  ji, 
339;  pure,  ii,  339;  peaceable,  ib.; 
bodily  and  spiritual  perfeciion.s- of, 
ib.;  access  of  to  the  tree  of  life,  ii, 
340;  dominion  of  over  nature,  ib.; 
righteousness  of,  ii,  341  sq.;  ele- 
mental worsliip  of  God  by,  ii,  343, 
344;  painless  transfer  of  to  higher 
life,  ii,  341  sq.;  possibility  of  falling, 
ii,  345;  summary  upon,  ii,  338-344. 

Mail,  in  the  present  state  of  nattcre.^ 
has  feeble  knowledge  of  God,  ii, 
350 ;  understanding  and  will  of,  de- 
praved, ii,  346,  350,  355;  divine 
image  lost  in,  ii,  351;  opposed  to 
law  of  God,  ii,  348  ;  moral  inability 
of,  i,  147,  187  sq  ;  has  cajiacily  only 
for  evil,  i,  284;  outward  righteous- 
ness of,  defective,  ii,  357;  sel:-will 
of,  i,  146;  self-righteousness  of,  ii, 
345;  depravity  inherited  liy,  i,  I46; 
cannot  overcome  do.,  i,  147,  152, 
153;  cannot  gain  "fitness"  for 
grace,  i,  156;  ii,  355;  sin  of,  not 
part  of  essential  nature,  i,  i-;5,  ii, 
346,  352;  do.  yet  inborn,  i,  145;  ii, 
349  ;  dominion  of,  over  nature  lost, 
ii,  35  I  ;  body  of,  subject  to  lust,  ii, 
347;  remnant  of  original  righteous- 
ness in,  i,  148;  ii,  354;  ability  of 
for  civil  affairs  (See  "  Righteous- 
ness, secular");  guilt  of,  i,  152;  ii, 
395  ;  condemned  to  eternal  (  eath, 
li,  349,  358;  summary  ujwn,  i,  144- 
154;  ii.  344-359-     -'^ee  -'Sin." 

Man,  in  t-ie  state  of  grace,  must  en- 
dure conflict  and  suffering,  i,  121  ; 
ii,  458,  459,  463  ;  is  thus  under  dis 
cipline,  i,  137.  1S4;  ii,  472  ;  devoted 
to  loving  service,  i,  183;  endures 
wrong  patiently,  i,  185,186;  may 
pursue  secular  calling,  185;  guided 
by    the   Word,  i,    187;    do.  by  the 


Spiiil,  ii,  457  ;  still  commits  sin,  ii, 
179.  45S>  456,  465;  repents  daily, 
i,  226,  244,  252,  325;  ii,  457,  498; 
finds  continual  forgiveness,  i,  180; 
ii,  456;  implanted  life  unfolds  in,  ii, 
454;  fellowship  of,  in  the  divine 
nature,  ib.;  exercises  fear,  love  and 
trust,  ii,  470;  prayerful,  ii,  472; 
natural  affection  of,  strengthened,  ii, 
474 j  gives  due  honor  to  body, 
ib.;  independent  of  monastic  w  oiks, 
i,  184;  produces  genuine  good 
works,  ii,  450,  474,  475  ;  conduct 
of,  in  family  life,  ii,  476-481  ;  do. 
in  political  relations,  ii,  481-487 ; 
leads  an  active  life,  ii,  487;  free 
(see  "Liberty,  Chrisiian");  heav- 
enly citizenship  of,  ii,  458;  bliss- 
ful feelings  of,  i,  157;  ii,  460,  470; 
liable  to  hours  of  darkness,  i,  1 80 
sq  ;  ii,  46 1  ;  summary  upon,  ii,  454— 

458- 

Man,  the  fall  of,  permitted,  i,  489; 
caused  by  unbelief,  presumption  and 
self-righteousness,  ii,  345 ;  do.  by 
violation  of  divine  law,  ib.;  deprav- 
ity resultant  from,  propagated,  ii, 
346-350  ;  not  so  complete  as  that  of 
Satan,  ii,  354. 

Alan,  the  righteousness  of,  secular,  i, 
I  SI,  153,285,484,486;  ii,  216,  356; 
original,  ii,  341  ;  two  fold  and  three- 
fold, (sermons  upon)  i,  285  ;  ii,  440 
sq.;  granted  to  faith,  i,  97,  [56,  179; 
ii,443  (see  "  Faith,"  "Justification," 
etc.;)  bestowed,  as  "righteousness 
of  God,"  i,  72,  73,  97-137,  165- 
xZt,  possirn,  285,  286,  412;  ii,  435- 
453;  actual,  thus  secured,  i,  286, 
327,  328,413  sq. ;  ii,  435  sq.,  440 
sq.,  463,  475,  4885  as  source  of 
light  conduct,  i,  176,  177,  179,  183 
sq  ;  ii,  436,  438-441 .  443-445  ;  ac- 
tive and  passive,  ii,  440;  explicit 
and  implicit,  ii,  427 ;  acquired  and 
infused,  ii,  426. 

Ma7i,  the  7uill  of,  in  original  state,  i, 
284,  432,  488;  subject  as  creature  to 
divine  sovereignty,  i,  430,  480,  495  ; 
ii,  28r,  344;  aptitude  of  for  receiv- 
ing divine  impulse  ;  i,  485  ;  remnant 
of  good  inclination  in  (tinder,  seed), 
i,  148,  149;  do.  causes  misery  in 
hell,  i,  148;  no  moral  element  in 
do.,  i,  149;  do.  overlooked  bv  Luth- 
eran theologians,  i,  1 50;  co-opera- 
tion of  divine  will  with,  i,  485; 
alienated  from  God,  i,   146,  4S6;  ii, 


6o4 


INDEX. 


344;  centred  in  self,  i,  146,  430, 
432;  enslaved,  i,  147,  150,  284;  ii, 

355  ;  cannot  cease  evil  or  love  and 
do  good,  i,  147,  149,  150,  152,  284, 
326iii,  355,  356;  cannot  love  God, 
i,  148;  cannot  prepare  itself  for 
grace,  i,  430,  432 ;  ii,  355  ;  law  re- 
veals inabitiy  of,  i,  490;  passive  in 
hand  of  God  or  devil,  i,  326,  484, 
486 ;  free  to  act  willi  respect  to 
lower  things  (see  ^^ Res  infcriores^^); 
even  the  latter  denied,  i,    430;    ii, 

356  ;  in  state  of  grace  free,  i,  429  ; 
yet  absolutely  dependent  upon  grace, 
ii,  442;  discussion  on  in  Heidelberg 
monastery,  i,  284  ;  controversy  witli 
Erasmus  on,  i,  475  sq.;  treatise 
of  Luiher  on  (see  -'Free  \Vill"); 
Melanchtlion's  Loci  on,  i,  431. 

JManachceism,  avoided,  ii,  292. 
Alandncalion,  oral,  ii,   146,   163,  186, 

514- 

JSIansJeld,  Luther  at,  i,  27;  letter  to 
Count  of,  ii,  296. 

Marbach,  disputation  at,  on  rights 
of  the  laity,  ii,  549. 

JMarburg,  colloqiiv  at,  on  baptism,  ii, 
57;  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  152 
sq. 

JiJarhurg  Articles,  on  Christology  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  154;  on  faith 
and  election,  ii,  300. 

A/ark,  the  gospel  of,  ii,  243. 

Marriage,  defined,  ii,  477  ;  exalted,  i, 
377  ;  objects  of,  ii,  478  ;  not  a  sacra- 
ment, i,  404;  ii,  481,  536;  a  secular 
ordinance,  ii,  479;  holy,  ii,  480;  to 
be  solemnized  by  the  church,  ib.; 
laws  upon,  379,  405  ;  of  priests,  i, 
377>  .^78,  424 ;  levirate,  ii,  40 ;  with 
imbelievers,  ii,  480. 

Marschalk,  Nicholas,  at  Erfurt,  i,  38. 

Mary,  the  virgin,  immaculate  concep- 
tion of,  ii,  358;  purity  of,  i,  200; 
humility  of,  i,  466;  praise  of,  i,  201  ; 
painless  parturition  of.  ii,  370;  preg- 
nancy of,  illustiatmg  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, ii,  no,  117,  122;  adoration  of, 
i,  29,   JfOO,   201  ;  ii,  47,  360,  466. 

Mass,  the,  Luther  trembles  in  celebrat- 
ing, i,  56 ;  canon  of.  approved,  i, 
204;  inaudible  reading  of,  com- 
mended, 1,204;  <lo.  condemned,  i, 
348  ;  errs  in  emphasizing  human  ser- 
vices, ib.;  sacrifice  of,  i,  121,  204, 
351,  392;  ii,  512,  520;  blasphemous 
practices  in, to  be  abolislied,  ii,  563  ; 
formula  for,  cited,  ii,  },},. 


Mass,  Lnlhe/ s  German  dissertation 
upon,  on  theory  of  sacrifice,  i,  351 
sq  ;  on  private  masses,  i,  354;  on 
frequent  celebrations,  ib.;  on  eleva- 
tion of  host,  ii,  33  ;  on  the  ideal 
church,  ii,  555,  561,  567. 

Alasscs,  annual,  should  be  limited,  i, 

579- 

A/asses,  for  the  dead,  i,  353,  354,  470. 

AJasses, private,  (^hedge-masses),  i,  353, 
458;  dissertations  upon,  i.  4c;7;  ii, 
161. 

Matthew,  the  gospel  of,  ii,  243 

A/eatis  of  grace.     See  "  Grace.'" 

Alediation.  See  •'  Revelation,''  "God, 
ordinate  agency  of." 

Mclanchthon,  at  Wittenberg,  i,  83  • 
commends  Luther's  exposition  of  ihe 
Psalms,  i,  124  ;  alarmed  at  Aiiabap- 
tism,  i,443  ;  endorses  Cologne  con- 
stitution, ii,  185  ;  differs  from  Luther 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  1 90;  re- 
ported defection  of,  ii,  184,  186,  188; 
Luther's  continue<i  regard  for,  ii, 
1S4,  1S9;  prepares  Wittenberg  Con- 
cord, ii,  191  ;  reply  of  to  liientz,  ii, 
447;  question  of  upon  justifying 
faith,  ii,  448  ;  Loci  of,  Luther's  es- 
timate of,  ii,  229;  do.  on  free  will, 
etc.,  i,  411,  479  ;  ii,  431  ;  do.  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  ii,  190. 

Aledicancy,  Luther's  aversion  to,  i, 
378;  restriction  of,  suggested,  i,  379; 
should  be  abolished,  i,  380. 

Afcrit,  man  has  neither  de  congruo 
nor  de  condigno,  i,  148,  156,  327  ;  ii, 

355.  453- 
ALirit,  in  the  sense  of  "  secure,"  i,  lOl, 

254- 

Alerits  of  Christ.     See  "Christ." 

Alerits  of  saints,  i.  e.,  deeds  accepted 
for  Christ's  sake,  i,  286;  ii,  453; 
form  no  real  ground  of  hope,  i,  156, 
27 T,  329  ;  bring  reward  of  gh'ry,  ii, 
453.    See  "  Treasure  of  the  church." 

Aletanoia,  ii,  224,  226,  242. 

A/illey!niu7n,\.\me  of, estimated,  ii,  575; 
carnal  conceptions  of,  rejected,  574, 

575- 
Miltitz,  negotiations  with,  i,  2S9  sq., 

409  sq. 
Alinistry,  the.  See  ■''  Clerical  office." 
Aliracles,  Luther's  broad  view  of,  ii, 
329;  believers  may  still  perform,  ii, 
221.  330;  to  be  tested  by  previous 
revelations,  ii,  221;  nolonger  needed, 
ii,  221,  330;  Luther  desired  no, 
ii,  221;  salvation  the  best,  ii,  329; 


INDEX. 


605 


invisible,  ii,  151  ;  papal,  fraudulent 
or  diabolical,  ii,  221  ;  of  the  devil,  i, 
380,  466;  ii,  334. 

Moderation.     See  "  Clemency." 

Monarchy,  in  the  church,  i,  304,  367, 
422;  in  the  state,  i,  363;  ii,  485. 

Alonasteries,  shoukl  be  subject  lo  their 
own  bishops,  i,  376 ;  shouUi  be  re- 
stricted to  their  orii^inal  character,  i, 
378 ;  continuance  in  should  be  op- 
tional, ib. 

Monastery  at  Erfurt,  Luther's  en- 
trance of,  i,  47,  49. 

Monastic  exercises,  Luther's  ob- 
servance of,  i,  50,  59,  69,  73;  his 
low  estnnate  of,  i,  46,  184  sq.  See 
"Ascetic  exercises." 

Monastic  vows.     See  "  Vows." 

Monaiticisin ,^hov\f\  be  restricted, i. 378. 

Moses,  the  books  of,  ii,  232;  Luther's 
estimate  of,  ib. 

Mutianus,  Rnfiis,  at  Gotha,  i,  38;  re- 
lation of  to  Luther,  i,  40;  do.  to  the 
church,  i,  43. 

Milnzer,  violence  of,  i,  19,  22,  24; 
mysticism  of,  ii,  25  ;  on  work  of 
Christ,  ii,  26 ;  on  means  of  grace, 
ii,  25,  26. 

Mvconiiis,  on  Wittenberg  Colloquy,  ii, 
'167,  168. 

Mysticism,  influence  of  upon  Luther, 
1,71.94,  "9,  135.  137  sq.;  colors 
liis  conception  of  man's  relation  to 
God,  138-146;  deepens  liis  sense 
of  oneness  with  Christ,  i,  168;  ii, 
367 ;  Luther's  divergence  from  in 
his  view  of  ihe  world,  i,  14I;  do. 
on  .'•in  and  grace,  i,  I42,  154;  do. 
in  apprehension  of  Christ,  i,  169;  ii, 
26,  367  ;  do.  on  inward  experience 
and  faith,  i,  181,  182;  ii,  425  ;  do. 
on  fidelity  to  Scriptures,  ii,  263. 

Mysticism  of  Carlstai/t  and  Miinzer, 
the,  ii,  25  sq.;  as  related  to  person 
ality  of  the  Holy  Gliost,  ii,  26. 

N^atin,  yohn,  reports  incident  con- 
cerning Luther,  i,  58;  testifies  to 
spirituality  of  do.,  i,  59. 

Naturalia  Integra,  ii,  351. 

Nature,  the  7vorks  of,  dimly  reveal 
God,  ii,  218,  219. 

Necessity,  of  all  tilings,  i,  431 ;  ii,  276, 
294,  299;  of  human  actions,  i,  480, 
482,  483,  497  ;  ii,  281,  294,  299, 
303  ;  covseqttetttis  vs.  consequentine, 
i,  48 2;  i'umutabilitatis,  i,  484;  does 
not  involve  compulsion,  ib. 


A^'hemiah,  the  book  of,  ii,  239. 

Neoplato7iisni,  influence  of  upon  Lu- 
ther, i,  141. 

Nobility,  address  to  the,  reviewed,  i, 
369-388;  purpose  of,  i,  371;  prin- 
ciples of,  modified,  ii,  389 ;  do. 
carried  to  excess  by  others,  ii,  23  ; 
estimates  of,  i,  370,  386;  cited,  i, 
388,  389,  399,  401,  406,  411,  420; 
ii,  23,  43,  198,  484. 

Nobility,  the,  urged  to  call  a  general 
council,  i,  420;  offer  protection  to 
Luther,  i,  370. 

Nominalism,  Luther's  relations   with, 

i,  51- 

A^ovatians,  on  sins  after  bapti.-^m,  i,  473. 

Obedience,  vows  of,  ii,  453-  See 
"  Vows." 

Obelisci,  of  Eck,  i,  249;  do.  on  sacra- 
ments of  Old  and  New  Testament, 
i,  265. 

Objective  reality,  of  the  sacraments, 
i,  442;   ii,  41,  42,  504,  539. 

Obstacle,  theory  concerning  in  doc- 
trine of  the  sacraments,  i,  246,  265, 

396. 
Occam,  Luther's  study  of,  i,  52. 
CEcolampadius,    view     of     upon    the 

Lord's  Supper,  ii,  102,  148  sq.,  153; 

Luther  regrets  death  of,  ii,  177. 
Offi.ce,  in  the  church.     See  "  Clerical 

Office." 
Oldekop,  criticises  Luther's  style,  i,  84. 
Omnipotence.     See  "God." 
Omnipi-esence.    See  "  God,"  "  Clirist." 
Omniscience.     See  "  God,"  "  Christ, ' 

"  Foreknowledge." 
Op2is  operatum,  acknowledged  in  the 

Lord's  Supper,  i,   121  ;   rejected,  i, 

342.  400. 
Oral  manducation,  ii,  146,   163,    186, 

514- 
Orders,  holy.  See  "Hierarchies." 
Ordinances,  human,  to  be  appointed 
by  the  whole  church,  ii,  553  ;  sliould 
not  be  multiplied,  i,  123;  burden- 
some, i,  283 ;  diversities  allowable 
in,  ii,  554;  always  open  to  change, 
ii,  555  ;  under  .'iupervision  of  reason, 
ii,  565  ;  no  compulsion  in  the  use 
of,  ii,  554;  in  how  far  to  be  ob- 
served, i,  123,  208,  312,  358,  398, 
464,  502;  ii,  30,  34,  42,  80,  84, 
552,553;  called  sacraments  in  tlie 
Romish  church,  ii,  536;  Jn.  xvi,  12 
does  not  apply  to,  ii,  222;  chiefly 
lor    the    young,    ii,    555  ;    Luther's 


6o6 


distaste  for,  ib.;  appointed  by 
princes  and  theologians,  ii,  569. 

Ordinalion,  nature  of,  i,  373,  406 ;  ii. 
544;  not  a  sacrament,  i,  362;  ii, 
536;   model  for,  ii,  569. 

Ought,  the  term  does  not  apply  to  be- 
lievers, ii,  491,  501. 

Panonnitauits,  on  independence  in 
matters  of  faith,  i,  280,  315,  316,  319. 

Pnpacy,  the,  historical  basis  of,  i,  299 
sq.;  scriptural  supports  of,  i,  294- 
298,  368;  divine  rigiit  of,  investi- 
gated, i,  293;  do.  denied,  i,  294, 
300,  301,  303,  309,  311;  subordi- 
nate to  secular  government,  i,  308  ; 
tyranny  of,  i,  382,  388  sq  ,  420; 
allied  to  fanaticism,  ii,  220 ;  fall  of 
foretold,  ii,  575.     See  "  Pope." 

Paradise,  divine  worship  in,  ii,  343. 
See  "  Heaven." 

Patietice,  under  oppression,  i,  312,355, 
359.  389.  399,  460,  502;  ii,  481, 
485,  487- 

Piiitl,  tlie  espistles  of,  ii,  243;  Luther 
compared  with,  i,   77- 

Peace,  a  fruit  of  faith,  i,  100;  preser- 
vation of,  the  aim  of  civil  govern- 
ment, ii,  482,  566. 

Peasants,  Twelve  Articles  of  the,  on 
call  of  a  pastor,  ii,  90. 

Penalty  [poena),  Luther  notes  five 
kinds  of,  i,  253 ;  the  church  may 
impose,  i,  254;  canonical  only  for 
the  living,  i,  230,  273  ;  do.  does  not 
determine  man's  relation  to  God,  i, 
;  55  ;  the  pope  can  remit  only  teni- 
l>oral,  i,  228,  255;  do.  remits  such 
by  his  own  power,  i,  255,  272  ;  all 
true  borne  by  Christ,  i,  105 ;  ii, 
395  •'^l-  (sss  "Christ  the  work  of"); 
do.  remitted  for  the  believer,  i,  253; 
the  divinely  imposed,  contrition  and 
cross- bearing,  i,  226,   238,  2.1.0. 

Penitence.     See  "  Contrition." 

Peter,  ranks  with  the  other  aposiles, 
ij  367 ;  was  he  ever  in  Rome,  i, 
422;  as  the  head  of  the  church,  i, 
96,  295-299;  primacy  of  honor  con- 
ceded to,  i,  302 ;   the  two  swords  of, 

i.   2^^. 

Peter,  tlie  epistles  of,  ii,  243.  244,  245. 

Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  urges 
harmony,  ii,  162;  letter  of  Luther 
to,  ii,  165;   do.  of  Bucer  to,  i,  158. 

Philosophy  vs.  theology,  i,  35,  79 ;  ii, 
267. 

Pictures^  use  of,  1,465.   See  "  Images." 


Picus,  of  Mirandola,  persecuted,  i,  283. 

Pilgrimages,  no  special  merit  in,  i, 
202;  home  duties  more  important 
than,  i,  202,  379  ;  to  be  discouraged, 

i,  379- 

Pistoris,  A/atermis,  at  Erfurth,  i,  38; 
friendly  attitude  of  toward  the 
church,  i,  43. 

Poenitentia,  rei  et  signi,  i,  242.  See 
"  Repentance." 

Pollich,  nifluence  of  at  Wittenberg,  i, 
81  ;  liberal  views  of,  ib.;  prophecy 
of,  ib. 

Pope,  the,  authority  of,  in  matters  of 
doctrine,  i,  279,  369;  do.  in  calhng 
of  councils,  i,  374  ;  subordinate  to 
councils,  i,  279 ;  do.  to  the  scrip- 
ture-, i,  280,  282,  316,  369,  374; 
authority  of  in  imposing  and  remit- 
ting penalty,  i,  iOj,  228,  255  ;  remits 
only  jieiiahies  inipo.sed  by  himself,  i, 
228,  268,  272  ;  applies  the  merits  of 
Christ  only  by  intercession,  i,  221, 
231,  236;  announces  divine  remis- 
sion, i,  228;  dispenses  divine  gifts, 
i,  276;  temporal  power  of,  i,  283, 
369,  383;  as  heretic,  i,  420;  as 
Antichrist,  i,  290,  309,  355,  369, 
o^i,  399.  410,  420,  422;  h,  556, 
575;  resistance  of  ju.'-tified,  i,  420; 
extortion  for  the  support  of,  i,  376,- 
384;  defiance  of,  i,  370;  letters  of 
Luther  to,  i,  249,  290,  409.  See 
"  Papacy,"  "  Pope,  supremacy  of." 

Pope,  Boniface  VIII.,  and  papal  de- 
cretals, i,  299. 

Pope,  Clement  V.,  and  papal  decretals, 
i,  299. 

Pope,  Clnt'-nt  VI.,  bull  of,  upon  in- 
dulgences, i,  272,  2S0. 

Pope,  Gregory  /.,  and  papal  suprem- 
acy, i,  292,  301. 

Pope,  Gregory  IX.,  and  papal  decre- 
tals, i,  299. 

Pope,  Leo  X.,  Luther's  opinion  of,  i, 
314,410,445. 

Pope,  snpreynacy  of  the,  oppo.=ed  by 
Occam  and  D'Ailly,  i.  52;  Luther's 
early  acknowledgment  of,  i,  1 23; 
his  growing  distrust  of,  i,  290  ;  Eck's 
theses  upon,  i,  292,  293;  his  argu- 
ment for,  i,  304;  Alveld's  do.,  i. 
363  ;  necessity  of,  denied,  i,  422  ;  on 
what  grounds  conceded,  i,  310;  as 
a  prim.icy  of  honor,  i,  302,  368 ; 
tract  of  Luther  upon,  i,  363-369,436. 

Portents,  ii,  330. 

Postils,  the  Church,  on  lay  preaching, 


INDEX. 


607 


ii,  90;  on  call  to  the  ministry,  ii,  92  ; 
use  of  allei^oiy  in,  li,  260;  on  right 
of  private  judgment,  ii,  261  ;  on  the 
work  of  Christ,  ii,  413  ;  ou  Christian 
assurance,  ii,  464;  on  ideal  con- 
gregation, ii,  567;  on  end  of  the 
world,  ii,  576.  See  "  Luther,  ser- 
mons of." 

Postt/s,  the  House,  use  of  allegory  in, 
ii,  260;  on  body  of  Christ,  ii,  517. 

Poverty.  See  "Mendicancy,'" 
"  Vows." 

Praeceptorium,  of  Luther,  i,  90. 

Prague,  letter  to  council  of,  on  uni- 
versal priesthood  and  clerical  office, 
ii,  85-87. 

Prayer,  scholastic  conception  of,  i,  53; 
power  and  benefits  of,  i,  472;  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  ii,  472;  a  mark  of 
the  church,  li,  551 ;  of  the  patriarchs, 
ii,  360;  Luther's  fervor  in,  i,  77. 

Prayer,  the  LonPs,  Luther's  exposi- 
tion of,  i,  93;  do.  on  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, i,  195 ;  do.  on  application  and  re- 
ception of  the  Word,  i,  191,  196,  198. 

Precepts.  See  "  Commandments," 
"  Counsels." 

Predestination,  Luther's  anxiety  in  re- 
gard to,  i,  57;  development  of  his 
theory  of,  i,  141,  329  sq.,  475,  500; 
ii,  294-310;  should  be  preached,  i, 
494;  ii,  295;  grounds  of  in<lividual, 
ii,  300;  does  not  remove  human  re- 
sponsibility, ii,  289;  mainlaiiied  in 
the  interest  of  doctrine  of  grace,  i, 
432,  495i  497;  ^  ground  of  hope,  i, 
332,  494;  relation  of  to  the  means 
of  grace,  i,  196-198,  490;  ii,  297, 
302;  prying  questions  about,  i,  330, 
332,  492,  497;  ii,  307;  counsel  to 
those  aistressed  about,  i,  330,  476; 
li,  277,  281,  295,  297,  298;  abuse 
of  the  doctrine  of,  ii,  296,466;  to 
destruction,  i,  476,  477,  492,  495; 
ii,  277,  278;  how  reconcile  do.  with 
gospel  call,  i,  491;  do.  with  divine 
goodness,  i,  478,  497;  to  salvation, 
i,  108,  289;  mysteries  of,  should 
drive  to  Christ,  i,  478,  492,  499. 
See  "God,  the  will  of,"  do.  "the 
universal  agejcy  of,"  "Free-wTTT." 

Presence,  tliree  possible  modes  of,  li, 
137  sq.;  local,  ii,  137,  139,  163; 
definitive,  ii,  138,  142,  513;  re- 
pletive,  ii,  139,  513.  See  "Real 
Presence." 

Prierias,  objects  t<")  Luther's  first 
thesis,  i,  252;  on  the  pope's  remis- 


sion of  sins,  ii,  256;  on  indulgen- 
ces vs.  ciiarity,  i,  269;  on  council 
and  pope,  i,  279,  282  >  the  Dia- 
logus  of  and  Luther  s  Responsio, 
i,  249. 

Priesthood,  Luther's  tract  upon  per- 
version of  the,  i,  455. 

Priesthood  of  believers,  the  universal, 
first  announcement  of,  i,  353,  361  ; 
stimulating  influence  of,  ii,  84;  dig- 
nity of,  i,  415;  equality  of  clergy 
and  laity  in,  i,  372,426;  functions 
of,  i,  415;  ii,  86,  543;  restrictions 
upon  public  exercise  of,  i,  406 ;  ii, 
87,  94,  95  ;  Emser  on,  i,  425  j  Carl- 
stadt  on,  ii,  24. 

Priestly  vestments,  assailed,  ii,  21  ;  a 
matter  of  indifference,  ii,  35. 

Priests,  are  but  ministers,  i,  295,  406; 
special  duties  of  are  mere  cere- 
monies, i,  361  ;  at  liberty  to  many, 
i,  377;  Luther's  early  traditional 
estimate  of,  i,  123,  205.  See 
"  Bishops,"  •'  Clerical  (Office." 

Primacy,  a  new  proposed,  ii,  556. 
See  "  Pope." 

Principle  of  the  Reformation,  i.  e., 
the  formal,  i,  208,  278;  ii,  214;  tlie 
material,  i,  208,  278. 

Private  judgment,  tlie  right  of,  i,  282, 
319,  321,  374,  40S,  433,  506;  ii, 
261. 

Proles,  Andreas,  at  Magdeburg,  i,  32. 

Prophesying,  the  scriptural  conception 
of,  ii,  94,  223. 

Prophets,  the,  inspiration  of,  ii,  234; 
teachings  of  based  on  Moses,  ii, 
233 ;  human  agency  of,  ii,  235  ; 
messages  of  committed  to  writing, 
ii.  235;  judged  by  their  relation  to 
Christ,  ii,  234. 

Propst,  of  Litzka,  Luther's  sermon 
for.  i,  94. 

Prostitution,  the  civil  government 
should  take  measures  against,  i,38«. 

Proverbs,  in  all  nations  based  upon 
the  works  of  God,  i,  237;  the  book 
of,  ii,  237. 

.Providence,  a  continuous  creation,  ii, 

\  323;  special,  over  believers,  ii, 
324;  mediate  and  immediate  ex- 
ercise of,  ii,  327.  See  "God,  or- 
dinate agency  of." 

Prussia,  the  Duke  of,  letter  to,  ii,  178. 

Psalms,  the,  prophetic  illumination  of, 
ii,  236,  253 ;  references  of  to  Christ, 
ii,  236;  record  experiences  of  Christ 
and  the  saints,  ib.;  liturgical  use  of, 


6o8 


INDEX. 


ii,  236,  261  ;  ciilical  judgment  of,  ii, 
237 ;  Luther's  high  estimate  of,  ii, 
236. 

Psalms, first  exposition  of  the,  (Anno- 
tations), i,  73,  89,  90,  91,  92  et 
passim;  review  of,  i,  95-124;  Me- 
lanchthon's  estimate  of,  i,  124. 

Psalms,  second  exposition  of  the,  (Oper- 
ationes),  i,  74,  90,  92,  137,  329,  358; 
li,  263  et  passim. 

Psalms,  the  penitential,  exposition  of, 
i,  74,  91,  93  ;  depicts  union  uf  be- 
lievers with  Cluist,  i,  168;  use  of 
allegory  in,  i,  193;  quotes  from 
Reuchlin,  i,  210. 

Pnr^atoiy,  existence  of  conceded,  i, 
273>  291.  353.  361  ;  do.  as  a  possi- 
bility, i,  473,  503 ;  scripture  used 
in  support  of,  i,  275,  318,  323,  361, 
374 ;  do.  not  apphcable  to,  i,  469, 
474;  a  condition  vs.  place,  i,  471  ; 
for  believers  only,  i,  216;  pains  of, 
similar  to  those  in  this  life,  i,  58, 
230,  274,  275,  470,  471,  472,  473  ; 
disciplinary,  i,  230,  274,  323 ;  ii, 
578;  canonical  penalties  do  not  ex- 
tend to,  i,  230,  273;  for  satisfactions 
not  rendered,  i,  216;  souls  in  may 
be  aided,  i,  273,  291  ;  do.  by  the 
pope,  i,  231 ;  do.  by  prayers  of  the 
church,  i,  231,  275,  291,  323;  do.  by 
masses,  i,  353,  470;  money  will  not 
avail  for  souls  in.  i,  275  ;  pastors 
power  in  behalf  of  his  parish  equals 
pope's,  i,  231  ;  only  the  contrite  can 
deliver  others,  i,  231,  275;  not  all 
souls  desire  deliverance  from,  i,  231, 
274 ;  doctrine  of,  gradually  aban- 
doned, i,  324,  469-475  ;  ii,  573. 
576;  Smalcald  articles  on,  i,  474; 
treatise  of  Luther  upon,  i,  473. 

Patio,  vs.  iutellectiis,  i,   127,  151. 

Real  Presence,  of  Chrisfs  body  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  i.  e.,  the  crucified 
and  glorified  body,  ii,  513  ;  held  be- 
fore Carlstadt's  assault,  i,  389  ;  ii,  58, 
71  ;  defended  against  Carlstadt,  ii, 
71-83;  do.  against  Zwingli,  ii,  153 
sq.;  do.  against  others,  ii,  164  note; 
acknowledged  by  Swabians,  ii,  102  ; 
do.  by  Bohemians,  ii,  192;  objec- 
tions to  the  doctrine  of,  answered — 
(a)  unsuitable,  ii,  no;  (b)  unneces- 
sary, ii,  no.  112,  124,  153;  different 
from  ubiquity,  ii,  in;  discussion  of 
should  be  avoiiled,  ii,  155  ;  do. 
should  be  encouraged,  li,  loi ;  can- 


not be  comprehended,  ii,  63,  64, 
ng;  mode  of,  ii,  77;  not  local,  li, 
J37>   I39>    163,    189;  definitive,  ii, 

138,  142,    189,    513;    replctive,    ii, 

139,  189,  513;  illustrated,  i,  390, 
39'.  392,  463;  ii.  65,  68,79,  "O, 
1 19,  513  ;  does  not  conflict  with  the 
presence  of  the  body  in  heaven,  ii, 
78,  107,  ni,  n5  sq.,  134  aq.,  140 
sq-.  173;  does  not  depend  upon 
worthiness  of  administraiit  or  recip- 
ient, ii,  169,  515;  is  not  found  in 
celebrations  of  the  Supper  among  sac- 
ramentarians,  ii,  129,  157,  161,  168, 
183,  514. 

Reason,  the  sphere  of,  ii,  216,  264, 
484;  dun  light  of.  263  sq.,  266; 
may  reacii  negative  conclusions,  ii, 
26b ;  enlightened  in  regeneration, 
ii,  265;  still  dependent  upon  the 
Word,  ii,  266;  as  common  sense,  i, 
453.  509 )  presumptions  of,  ii,  75\ 
n4,  134,  195;  the  reliance  of 
Romanists  and  Fanatics,  ii,  220;  de- 
spised, ii,  195;  proof  from,  i,  279, 
282,  436,  437",  509. 

Rechenhero-.  Hans  of,  letter  of,  upon 
universal  salvation,  i,  477. 

Reconciliation,  through  the  atonement, 
ii,  284  sq  ,  311,  406  sq. 

Reda/iption,  Christ's  work  of,  ii,  388- 
421,  365  sq.;  content  of,  as  proffered 
to  man,  ii,  210  sq.,  388. 

Redress  of  wrongs,  allowable  to 
rulers,  ii,  487. 

Reformation,  the  need  of,  i,  283;  to 
be  effected  only  by  tlie  power  of  the 
Word,  ii,  97 ;  do.  through  constituted 
authorities,  ib. 

Reformation,  the  Hombcrg plan  ofW, 

567- 

Regeneration,  broad  view  of,  ii,  440. 
See  "Baptism,"  "Faith,"  "Man,  in 
state  of  grace." 

Regensburg,  the  compromise  of,  ii,  447. 

Religion,  the  sphere  of,  ii,  215. 

Remembrance  of  Christ  in  the  Lord''s 
Supper,  ii,  82,  1 14,  188,  190,  520; 
Carlstadt's  theory  of  ii,  23,  26,  72. 

Remnant,  of  original  character,  i,  148- 
152;  ii,  354- 

Repentance,  medieval  theory  of,  i,  215, 
239,241,  402;  a  sacrament,  i,  264, 
355,  403;  related  to  otlier  sacra- 
ments, i,  265,  356,  401 ;  ii,  532;  do, 
to  Word,  i,  401,  404;  ii,532;  do.  to 
baptism,  i,  355;  two  princijjal  parts 
of,  i,  242;  Carlstadt's  view  of,  ii,  27; 


INDEX. 


609 


an  inward  experience,  i,  67,  224, 
226,  235,  242;  springs  from  love,  i, 
68,  163,  190,  244,  324;  ii,  499; 
moral  element  of,  i,  226;  continued 
through  life,  i,  226,  244,  252,  325; 
ii,  498;  do.  in  purgatory,  i,  230;  a 
work  of  grace,  i,  324;  office  of  the 
law  to  produce,  i,  190,  416;  ii,  431, 
496  sq.;  Latin  dissertation  upon,  i, 
239,  244-247,  256— cited,  259,  262, 
263,  264,  267;  German  dissertation 
upon,  i,  25c,  256,  260,  267. 

Hes  superiores  et  inferiores,  i,  150, 
285,  431,  484,  501 ;  li,  216,  356. 

Resignation  [self- renunciation),  i,  25, 
26,  98,  138,  139,  141,  159-161; 
contrasted  with  positive  faith,  ii,  31 
sq.,  368. 

Jiesisfaiici',  the  right  of,  denied,  ii,  97, 
481;  granted,  under  restrictions,  ii, 

4«5- 

Resohitio,  upon  thesis  xiii.  of  Eck  i, 
292-3 14 /<wj/w,  371,  373,  384. 

Resolutiones,  to  ninety-five  theses,  i, 
231,249-292  passim,  T,a,\;  to  Leipzig 
theses,  i,  392-328 /iwiz'w,  406. 

Restoration,  of  all  things,  11,  5S2  s  q.; 
of  the  wicked,  ii,  581. 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  completed-  his 
victory,  ii,  409  sq.;  relation  of  to  the 
atonement.  412;  assures  that  of  be- 
lievers, ii,  583. 

Resurrection  of  the  dead,  a  hard  doc-  | 
trine  to  believe,  ii,  583 ;  prefigured  I 
in  nature,  ib.;  in  part  already  ac- 
complished, ii,  583;  the  general,  ii, 
5S0;  assured  by  that  of  Clirist,  ii, 
583 ;  relation  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
to,  ii,  22,  125.  126,  127,  517,  518; 
state  after,  ii,  518  (see '•  Heaven," 
"Hell"). 

Reuchlin,  Luther  defends,  1,84;  do. 
quotes  as  linguistic  authority,  i,  1 19, 
210;  Luther's  regard  for,  i,  210. 

Revelation,  divine,  methods  of,  ii,  218; 
under  sensible  forms,  general,  218; 
do.  special — in  Old  Testament  times, 
ib.;  do  still  possible,  ii,  221  ;  in  har- 
mony witli  Word,  ib.;  Luther  did 
not  desire,  ib.;  general  and  special 
contrasted,  li,  219;  special  iiuvard 
only  through  the  scriptures,  ii,  220; 
scriptural,  ii,  279  ;  reliability  of  do., 
ii,  293 ;  in  Old  and  New  Testaments 
compared,  ii,  360;  place  of  doctrine 
of  in  Luther's  system,  ii,  214. 

Rtvelatiott,  the  book  of,  ii,  225,  248; 
do.  on  world  kingdoms,  ii,  575  ;  in- 

39 


terpretation  of  ninth  chapter  of  do.,  i, 

375- 

Rewards,  of  righteous  conduct,  tem- 
poral, i,  285;  ii,  357,  452;  eternal, 
ii,  452.     See  "  Heaven." 

Rhcgius,  Urban,  advised  to  abandon 
saint-worship,  i,  468. 

Right  hand.     See  "  God,"  "  Christ." 

Righteous,  broad  usage  of  the  term,  n, 
286. 

Righteousness.     See  "  God,"  "  Man." 

Rock,  on  which  tiie  cliurch  is  builded, 
i,  295,  298,  368;  ii,  64,  73. 

Romans,  the  epistle  to  the,  studied  by 
Luther,  i,  73  ;  Luther's  estimate  of, 
ii,  243. 

Romans,  the  epistle  to  the,  Luther' s 
exposition  of,  i,  89,  90,  124;  Me- 
lanchthon's  estimate  of,  i,  1 24; 
preface  to,  on  ju.^tification,  ii,  446, 
450;   do.    on  predestination,  i,  479, 

497,  500- 
Rome,  Luther's  journey   to,  i,  84-88. 

Sabbath,  the,  in  Paradise,  ii,  343  ;  pre- 
served by  the  church,  ii,  38;  as  a 
tradition,  i,  208  ;  ii,  553 ;  for  hear- 
ing the  Word,  ii,  39  ;  for  rest  and 
order,  ib.;  for  the  weak,  i,  358;  ii, 
36,  38 ;  may  be  observed  on  other 
day  of  week,  ii,  40 ;  spiritual  celebra- 
tion of,  ii,  38;  obligation  of,  denied, 
1,207,  358;  ii,  35,  36,  37,38;  con- 
tinuous (mystical  conception), i,  140; 
eternal,  in  heaven,  ii,  584, 

Sacrament  and  example.  See  '♦  Christ, 
the  work  of." 

Sacra?iient  and  sacrifice,  i,  394. 

Sacranientarians,  six  leaders  of,  desig- 
nated, ii,  100;  seven  leading  spirits 
of,  ii,  188;  views  of,  widely  diver- 
gent from  Luther's, ii,  loi;  upon  l)ap- 
tism,  original  sin,  etc.,  ii,  1 83;  their 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Su]-)per,  ii, 
129,  157,  161,  510;  charged  with 
insincerity,  ii,  189. 

Sacraments,  the,  in  general,  ii,  502- 
506;  Carlstadt's  contempt  for,  ii,  24; 
marks  of,  i,  355,403;  ii,  504,532; 
number  of,  i,  264,  31^5,  403  sq.;  ii, 
532,  536  ;  as  marks  of  the  church,  i, 
427  ;  ii,  506,  538 ;  typify  some- 
tiling,  ii,  146;  convey  a  treasure,  ii, 
503  ;  effectual  signs  of  grace,  i,  246, 
395,  397;  ii-  502,  503;  show  forth 
and  promise  Christ,  i,  345  ;  do  not 
benefit  without  faith  (wiierever  no 
obstacle),  i,  246,  265,  266,  287,  355, 


6io 


INDEX. 


396;  ii,  48,  505;  confirm  faith,  i, 
351 ;  11,506,539;  objective  reality  of 
not  dependent  upon  faith,  i,  265  ;  ii, 
54;  do.  upon  character  of  adminis- 
trant  or  recipient,  ii,  504;  relation 
of  to  the  Word  (see  "  Word  ")  ;  di- 
vine power  with,  only  during  cele- 
bration, ii,  505  ;  God  can  save  with- 
out, ii,  506,  511  ;  of  Old  and  New 
Testaments  contrasted,  i,  265,  396  ; 
ii,  343,  361 ;  witler  sense  of  the  term, 
ii,  532;  summary  upon,  ii,  502-537. 

Saints.  See  "  Communion,"  '•  Merits," 
"  Temptations." 

Saini-worship,  by  Luther,  i,  29,  47, 
54;  his  faith  in,  i,  200,  360,  466; 
his  infrequent  allusion  to,  i,  121 ; 
his  final  adandonment  of,  i,  467 ; 
abuses  connected  with,  i,  202,  206, 
466;  modified  to  intercession,  i, 
468;  letter  of  Luther  to  Erfurt  upon 
i,  467;  sermon  of  do.  upon,  i,  46S  ; 
treatise  of  do.  upon,  i/>.;  Smalcald 
Articles  on,  i,  469.     See  "  Mary." 

Salvation,  announced  under  Old  Tes- 
tament, ii,  377  sq.;  assurance  of  per- 
sonal, i,  330 ;  ii,  302;  imparted 
only  through  Word,  ii,  421  ;  appro- 
priation of,  ii,  425-488.  See 
«'  Faith." 

Sanctijicatioii,  Luther's  conception  of, 
ii,  441  ;  progressive,  ii,  457- 

Saiutities,  of  the  church,  ii,  541,  551. 

Satisfaction,  as  element  of  repentance, 
1,215,  241,  247,  255,  267;  as  re- 
lated to  indulgences,  i,  238,  243 ; 
better  to  render  than  to  secure  re 
mission  of,  i,  225,  268 ;  works  of 
displaced  by  works  of  love,  i,  267; 
true,  ii,  240,  24.1,  403;  rendered  by 
Christ,  ii,  406.  See  '  Penalty," 
"  Christ,  the  work  of." 

Scheurl,  C/iristop/t,M  Wittenberg, i, 82. 

Scholasticis)n,  Luther  studies  at  Er- 
furt, i,  51  ;  do.  inihfferent  toward,  i, 
119;  do.  seeks  to  discredit,  i,  133; 
skeptical  tendencies  in,  i,  52;  criti- 
cism of  papal  supremacy  in,  i,  52  ; 
nominalism  in,  i,  52 ;  hinders  re- 
formation, i,  283  ;  at  the  universi- 
ties, i,  384;  Luther's  acquaintance 
with,  displayed  in  sermon  upon 
Eternal  Word,  i,  133;  final  breach 
with,  i,  420. 

ScJiPols,  Scriptures  should  be  text-book 
in,  i,  382;  for  girls,  ib. 

Srhinff,  Hieronymns,  at  Wittenberg, 
i,  82. 


Sclnuabach  Articles,  on  baptism  and 
the  sacraments,  ii,  57;  on  person  of 
Christ,  ii,  154;  on  Lord's  Supper, 
ib.;  on  faith  and  election,  ii,  300 

Sclnviukfcld,  assault  of  upon  Luther, 
ii,  187;  as  sacramentarian  leader,  ii, 
100;  on  person  of  Christ,  ii,  371. 

Science,  the  sphere  of,  ii,  216. 

Scotus,  Duns,  Luther's  study  of,  i,  52; 
on  the  Trinity,  ii,  313. 

Scriptures,  the,  canon  of,  i,  317,  322; 
ii,  224-230 ;  ground  of  faith  in,  ii, 
223-230;  authority  of,  i,  314,  316, 
318,  319,  501;  ii,  223  sq  ;  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  i,  316,  320, 
501,  509;  ii,  220;  not  dependent 
upon  the  church,  i,  320 ;  li,  224;  at- 
tested by  antiquity,  ii,  224;  reveal 
all  religious  truth,  ii,  218  sq.,  268; 
errors  in,  ii,  255  sq-;  study  of,  com- 
mended, i,  322,  504 ;  clearness  of,  i, 
503  ;  ii,  258  ;  inner  witness  to,i,  500 ; 
11,224,226,  227;  accejited  in  Lu- 
ther's day,  li,  226 ;  dangers  of  preach- 
ing, i,  510;  assaults  upon,  ii,  511 ; 
valued  for  relation  to  Christ,  i,  125  ; 
ii,  277  sq.;  self-interpreting,  i,  322. 
See  "  Word." 

Scriptures,  the,  inspiration  of,  ii,  223, 
224,  226,  250,  257  ;  degrees  of,  ii, 
252. 

Sc7-iptnres,  the,  interpretation  of,  pro- 
per spirit  in,  i,  125  ;  freedom  in,  i, 
321  ;  in  harmony  with  Christ,  ii, 
258 ;  by  any  believer,  i,  374,  506, 
507  sq.;  ii,  261  ;  by  the  Spirit,  i, 
433;  ii,  225,  258,  262;  tiiree-fold 
and  four-fold  sense  in,  i,  96,  192, 
435;  11,258;  allegorical,  i,  91,  125, 
434;   ii,    260;   examples    ol    do.,    i, 

125,  171,  193;  tropological,  i,  96; 
mvstical,  ?7^.-  literal,  i,  96,434;  ii, 
27,  258,  259,  262;  spiritual,  i,  435. 

Secular  ///c,  sanctity  of,  i,  185  ;  spiiere 

of,  ii,  215. 
Selfrighteomness,  condemned,   i,  97, 

126,  138  sq.,  146  sq.,  152  sq.,  284 
.sq.,  326,  495  ;  ii,  344,  345-  35i>  355. 
442-455  jjassim,  465,  469. 

Sense,  common,  see  "  Reason." 

Seraphim,  ii,  326. 

Sheol,  ii,  418,  579. 

Sickingen,  Francis  of,  offers  Luther  a 

refuge,  i,  370.  ^ 

"  Signifies^  as  interpretation  for  "  is,  ' 

ii,  131  .sq. 
Sin,  the  nature  of,  i,  98,  144  sq  .  326  ; 

ii,  345,  346,  465  ;  entrance  of  into 


INDEX. 


6lT 


the  world,  i,  Iq8,  488;  the  first,  ii, 
344;  do.  prompted  by  unbelief  and 
presumption,  ii,  345 ;  original,  i, 
146,  326;  ii,  348,  352,  456;  do. 
truly  sin,  ii,  348;  Zvvingli  on  do.,  ii, 
100;  universality  and  propagation 
of,  i,  146,  147;  li.  348;  not  directly 
imputed,  ii,  349  ;  not  part  of  essen- 
tial nature  of  man,  i,  I45 ;  ii,  353; 
located  in  the  wdl,  i,  146;  man 
cannot  himself  escape  from,  i,  147; 
conviction  of,  ii,  358;  penalty 
of,  ib.;  vanquished  by  Christ,  ii, 
409  sq.;  remitted  in  baptism,  i,  326; 
ii,  456 ;  overcome  in  daily  conflict, 
ii,  456;  against  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  ii, 
468;  in  mockery  of  the  devil  ii,  337. 
474 ;  with  confidence  in  Christ,  li, 
470  ;   man  in  state  of,  ii,  350-359- 

Si7ts,  actual,  ii,  348;  of  weakness,  ii, 
466;  voluntary,  ib.;  mortal,  ii,  465, 
467  ;  of  omission,  i,  55,  69  ;  ii,  469 ; 
of  the  flesh,!,  145;  imaginary,  li, 
469. 

Sins,  forgivetiess  of,  effected  by  bap- 
tism and  satisfaction  (R.  C.  theory), 
i,  53;  granted  by  God  only,  i,  227; 
pope  merely  announces,  ib.,  228; 
the  church  not  a  necessary  agency 
in,  i,  237,  262,  277;  embraced  in 
conception  of  righteousness,  i,  99, 
180;  do.  of  justification,  ii,  436; 
upon  contrition  without  indulgences, 
i,  227;  the  whole  content  of  the 
gospel,  ii,  210;  announced  to  the 
individual,  ii,  363;  to  be  daily 
sought,  ii,  467;  a  second,  i,  181; 
final,  with  expulsion,  at  death,  ii, 
578.  See  "Absolution,''  "Lord's 
Supper." 

Sirac/i,  the  book  of,  ii,  240. 

Siitalcald  Articles,  on  saint-worship,  i, 
469;  on  purgatory,  i,  474;  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  ii,  176,  179,  273; 
on  lay  absolution,  ii,  528. 

Sfteak-preachers,  ii,  92,  93,  54^;  fl's- 
sertation  on,  ii,  92. 

Solomon,  the  books  of,  ii,  237,  253. 

Solomon,  the  Song  of,  ii,  238. 

Soul,  sleep  of  the,  i,  471 ;  ii,  577,  583. 

Spalatin,  at  Erfurt,  i,  39;  religious 
fervor  of,  i,  43;  letters  of  Luther  to, 
i,  3lO;ii,  47. 

Spenlein,  letter  of  Luther  to,  i,  163, 
168. 

Spei-atus,  letter  of,  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  among  the  Bohemian  Breth- 
ren, ii,  58;   Luther's  reply  to,  i,  59, 


63 ;  letter  of,  on  the  words  of  con- 
secration and  Luther's  reply,  i,  67. 

Spires,  the  diet  at,  ii,  564. 

Spirit  and  letter.     See  "  Letter,  etc." 

Sponsors  in  baptism,  the  faith  of,  i, 
399;  ii,  45,  48. 

State,  original — of  sin^  of  grace.  See 
"  Man.  ' 

Staztpitz,  paternal  interest  of  in  Luther, 
i,  64;  publications  of,  i,  64,  68,  70, 
118,  250;  view  of  on  origin  of 
repentance,  i,  68  ;  skill  of  in  guid- 
ing the  distressed,  ib.;  reproves 
Luther's  morbid  sensitiveness,  i,  69; 
urges  to  diligent  study  of  the  scrip- 
tures, 1,  70;  Conservatism  of  at 
Wittenberg,  i,  82. 

Stein,  Minist  r,'  against  usury,  ii,  23. 

Stoicis»i,  condemned,  ii,  474. 

Stolpe,  answer  to  official  at,  i,  354. 

Sti-assburg,  letter  to.  on  bodily  presence, 
ii,  62;  on  arguments  of  Zvvmgli  and 
Qicolampadius,  ii,  loi,   115,156. 

Strauss,  Jllifiister,  on  usury  and  year 
of  jubilee,  ii,  23. 

Sufferings  of  the  rigJiteous.  See 
"Temptations,"  "Man,  in  state  of 
grace." 

Sunday,  i,  358.     See  "  Sabbath." 

Supererogatiott,  works  of,  i,  23";,  271. 

Superintendents,  among  the  Bohem- 
ians, ii,  89,  556. 

Squealing- bath  of  the  Imv,  i,  60. 

Swiss  Theologians,  adherence  of  to 
Zwingli,  ii,  173;  Bucer's  negotia- 
tions with,  ii,  159,  162,  167,  173; 
letters  of  to  lAither,  ii,  173,  177; 
reply  of  Luther  to,  ii,  177  ;  attitude  of 
Luther  toward,  ii,  17S,  180,  183; 
assault  of  upon  Luther  in  1 545,  ii, 
194. 

Synecdoche,  in  words  of  institution,  ii, 
80,  147,  188,  514;  in  definition  of 
the  church,  ii,  560. 

Syngranima,  the,  emphasizes  the  gift 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  102;  ac- 
knowledges real  presence,  ib.;  holds 
that  the  Word  l)rings  the  body,  ib.; 
do.  that  the  gift  is  forgiveness  of  sins, 
ii,  103  ;  do.  that  the  Supper  is  a  sign 
of  the  unity  of  believers  ii,  107;  on 
reception  by  believers,  ii,  104  ;  do. 
not  bodily,  ib.;  holds  more  than 
ideal  participation,  ii,  106;  on  rela- 
tion of  presence  in  Supper  to  do.  in 
heaven,  ii,  107;  divergence  of  from 
Luther's  view,  ii,  103;  Luther's 
attitude   toward,   ii,    108,    181;  his 


6l2 


prefaces  to,  ii,  102-109;  relation  of 
to  Calvin's  position,  ii,  108,  iSi. 
Synods,   participation   of    laiiy    in,   ii, 

550- 
Synteresis,  see  "  Remnant." 

Table  Talk  of  Luther,  the  published, 
quoted  with  reserve,  i,  207  ;  cited,  1, 
25,  26  et passii)i. 

Tauler,  Luther's  first  acquaintance 
withji,  119;  laudation  of,  i,  135  ;  in- 
fluence of  upon  Luther,  i,  136,  138, 
140,  149,  250,  263;  on  remnant  of 
good  inclination,  i,  149;  on  believ- 
er's joy  amid  trials,  i,  182;  on  bro- 
therly love,  i,  183;  on  monastic  life, 
i,  184;  his  sense  of  divine  wrath,  i, 
154 ;  treatise  of  upon  the  poor  life  of 
Christ,  i,  149,  154. 

Te  Deum,  the,  accepted  as  a  symbol, 
ii,  170. 

Temptations,  spiritual,  portrayed,  ii, 
458  ;  similar  to  tliose  of  purgatory  or 
hell,  i,  274,  473;  disciplinary,  i,  274, 
459 ;  illustrated  in  Job,  236,  238, 
402,  458  ;  do.  in  Luther,  i,  52  sq., 
57-60;  ii,  208,  Z11\  parallel  with 
those  of  Christ,  ii,  236,  402 ;  assail 
the  best  saints,  ii,  459  ;  counsel  for 
those  enduring,  i,  330,  476;  ii,  277, 
281,  295,  297,  298,  460,  474. 

Termiiiologv,  doctrinal,  how  far  to  be 
scriptural,  ii,  269. 

Tertiilliani,  the,  chiliasm  of,  rejected, 

",575- 

Tessaradecas  consolotoria,  i,  344-346; 
ii,  276. 

Testament,  the  A^ew,  superior  to  the 
Old,  ii,  242. 

Testament,  the  Old,  a  ]a\^■-book  with 
promises,  ii,  230;  value  of  historic 
narratives  of,  ii,  231 ;  contains 
germs  of  the  New,  ib. 

Testaments,  the  Old  and  New  com- 
pared, i.  III;  ii,  230;  transition 
from  one  to  the  other,  ii.  359  sq. 

Tctrapolitan  Confession,  the,  prejiara- 
tion  of,  i,  155,  156;  on  the  Lord's 
Supper,  i.  155,  157,  172;  lUicer's 
interpretation  of,  i,  159;  Luther's 
opinion  of,  i,  157,  176. 

Tetzel,  Luther  first  hears  of,  1,219; 
traffic  of  in  indulgences,  i.  223,  231  ; 
publications  of  and  Luther's  rejilv 
to,  i,  236,  249,  252-266;  Luthei'^ 
pity  for,  i,  219. 

Textual  familiarity  loith  the  scrip- 
tures, i,  61,  70;   ii,  262. 


Theology,  the  sphere  of,  ii,  215;  vs. 
philosophy,  li,  267  ;  vs.  logic,  i,  137  ; 
of  Luther,  Cliristocentric,  ii,  241  ; 
Luther's  devotion  to,  i,  61,  135, 
382;  false,  i,  52,423. 

Theses  at  Leipzig,  i,  325,  326,  327. 

Theses  for  disputations  (A.  D.  15 1 6, 
1517).  >.  94,  IJ7  ;  cited,  i,  138,  147, 
150,  152,  160,  166,  17S,  184,  194, 
197,  199,  201,  255,  450;  (A.  D. 
1518),  i,  255,  260,  263,  265,  488. 

Theses,  the  ninety  Jive,  object  of,  i, 
225;  analysis  of,  i,  226-239;  "lod- 
eration  of,  i,  231 ;  earnest  moral 
tone  of,  i,  237  ;  presuppose  faith,  i, 
237  sq.;  cited,  i,  239-276  passim, 
313,  423;  dissertation  accompany- 
ing, i.  225;  resolutiones  upon,i,  231, 
2^()- 2^2  passim,  344. 

Tinder,  of  sin  [fomes),  i,  I49,  326. 

Tobias,  the  book  of,  ii,  241. 

Tongties,  speaking  ivith,  in  apostolic 
church,  ii,   94;   in   modern   do.,   ii, 

234,313- 

Traditions,  not  justified  by  mere  an- 
tiquity, i,  505  ;  weight  of,  if  univer- 
sal, ii,  53,  54 ;  to  be  tested  by  scrip- 
ture, i,  506;  rejected  in  favor  of  do  , 
i,  501  ;  danger  of,  503  ;  allowable  in 
lower  sphere  only,  i,  501,  502;  not 
sanctioned  liy  Jn.  xvi.  12,  ii,  222; 
may  be  voluntaiily  lionored,  i,  502, 
503,552.     See  "Ordinances.'' 

Traducianism,  maintained,  ii,  348. 

Transubstantiation,  taught,  i,  340 ; 
objections  to,  stated,  i,  389  sq.;  de- 
nied, i,  381,  462;  tolerated,  i,  503  ; 
unnecessary,  ii,  513. 

Treasure  of  the  church,  the,  consists 
in  merits  of  Christ  and  the  saints, 
i,  221,  269,  270,  272,  324;  bull  of 
Clement  upon,  i,  272;  discussed  at 
Leipzig  and  Augsburg,  ib.;  every 
Chiistian  shares  in,  i,  233 ;  consists 
of  the  gospel,  i,  229 ;  do.  of 
keys  of  the  church,  ib.;  do.  of  the 
church's  poor,  ib.;  doctrine  of,  in- 
volves power  of  pope  and  church,  i, 

273- 
Trinity,  the.     See  "God." 
Truth,  intuition  of,  ii,  430,  460.     See 

"  Revelation." 
Truttvetter,  teaches  superiority  of  the 

scriptures,  i,  36  ;    at  Wittenberg,  i. 

82  ;    works    of,    i,    37  ;     letters    of 

Luther  to,  i,  133. 
Turks,  prophecies  concerning  the,  ii, 

575- 


INDEX. 


613 


Ubiquity.     See  "  Christ." 

Unction,  extreme,  not  a  sacrament,  ii, 
536;  not  appointed  by  Cluist,  i, 
406 ;  for  restoration,  not  as  prepara- 
tion for  deatl),  i,  407 ;  tolerated  as 
usage,  ii,  536. 

Uniformity,  of  ceremonies,  ii,  554. 

Unity,  forms  of,  including  sacramental, 
i;,'i46,  513. 

Universaiisin,  rejected,  ii,  581. 

Universities,  the  course  of  study  in, 
illustrated  in  Luther's  case,  i,  35, 
37,41  sq;  tobe  revolutionizetl,  i,3<^2. 

Unworthy  conifminicants,  vs.  ungodly, 
ii,  169.  See  under  "  Lord's  Sup- 
per." 

Usury,  condemned  in  practice  and 
principle,!,  385;  tithing  more  just 
than,  ii,  40;  Mosaic  law  upon,  an 
example,  ii,  40;  extreme  agitation 
against,  ii,  23 ;  dissertation  upon, 
cited,  i,  380,  385. 

Valla,  Laurefitius,  persecuted,  i,283; 
publication  of,  upon  Donation  of 
Ccnsiantine,  i,  383. 

Venetians,  l^neT  to  the,  ii,  183;  do., 
184,    190,  191. 

Vestments, priestly,  ii,  21,  33. 

Violence,  deprecated,  \,  420,  458. 

Visitors,  Saxon.  See  "Instructions," 
etc. 

Votv,  the  baptismal,  superior  to  all 
others,  i,  359,  395. 

Vows,  monastic,  the  introduction  of,  i, 
37S  ;  dishonor  tiie  Ijaplismal  vow,  i, 
360,  400;  no  scriptural  authority 
for,  i,  400,  451  ;  interfere  with  faith 
and  love,  i,  400,  451,  452,  453,  456; 
do.  with  Cinistian  libertv,  i,  452; 
do.  with  filial  duty,  i,  451;  contrary 
to  divine  commandments,  i,  453; 
perilous  to  souls,  i,  400;  diabolic,  i, 
401  ;  binding  force  of,  i,  360,  378, 
425,  447;  the  pope  trifles  with  (dis- 
pensations), i,  401  ;  Luther  ]ierson- 
ally  ignores,  i,  425  ;  to  be  rescinded 
a  priori,  i,  447  sq.;  Carlstadt  upon, 
i,  447,  449;  theses  of  Luther  upon, 
i,  450;  Latirf  treatise  of  do.  upon,  i, 
451  ;  German  sermon  of  do.  uiion, 
ib. 

VoTijs  of  chastity  (celibacy),  among  the 
fathers,  i,  377;  evil  results  of,  ib.; 
invalid  if  taken  before  puberty, 
i,  360 ;  diabolic  i,  377;  open  disre- 
gard of,  advised,  i.  378,  424. 

Vo7as  of  obedience  and  poverty,  subject 


to    general    objections    as    above,  i, 
456,457- 

IValdenses,  ii,  193.  See  "  Bohemian 
Brethren." 

Warning  against  Insurrection,  trea- 
tise of  Luther  entitled,  ii,  98,  563. 

IVartburg,  Liither  at  the,  i,  441  sq. 

IVesel,  relormatory  ideas  of,  i,  t,t,  ;  on 
indulgences,  i,  231  ;  persecuted,  i, 
283. 

IVickliffe,  upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  ii, 

145- 

Will.  See  "God,"  "Man,"  "Free 
will." 

Wisdom,  the  book  of,  ii,  240. 

Witches,  Luther's  belief  in,  ii,  334. 

Witness,  ///wf;,  should  l)e  experienced, 
i,  181  ;  ii,  461,463,469;  faiih  not 
dependent  upon,  i,  182;  ii,  443, 
460,  461  ;  will  be  finally  attainea 
by  the  faithful,  i,  iSi  ;  ii,  462. 

Wittenberg,  fanatical  outbreak  at,  ii, 
21  sq. 

Wittenberg,  colloquy  at,  ii,  167  sq.; 
170. 

Wittenberg  Concord,  the,  preparation 
of,  ii,  169;  rejected  by  the  Swiss,  ii, 
173;  on  child-faith,  ii,  57 ;  on  tlie 
Lord's  Supper,  ii,  167  sq. 

Wittenberg  Reformation,  the,  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  ii,  190;  on  rights  of 
congregations,  ii,  570. 

Wittenberg  university,  general  char- 
acter of,  i,  81,  83  ;  teachers  at,  i,  81  ; 
students  at,  i,  82 ;  Luther's  call  to,  i, 
79. 

Women,  why  preaching  of  prohibited, 
ii,  87,  94. 

Word,  the  Eternal.     See  "  Christ." 

Word  of  God,  the,  the  only  reliable 
source  of  truth,  i,  187  ;  ii,  200,  223  ; 
above  tradition  and  human  ordi- 
nances, ii.  222 ;  above  pope  and 
councils,  i,  2S0,  282,  316,  318  sq., 
369,  374,  501  ;  ii,  222;  contained  in 
the  scriptures,  ii,  223  sq.;  sufficiency 
of,  attested  by  its  light  and  power,  i. 
62;  brings  comfort  to  Luther,  i,  60; 
Staupitz  urges  the  study  of,  i,  70, 
71  ;  Luther  relies  only  upon,  i,  237, 
242,  278,  316;  do.  testifies  to  im- 
portance of  before  discussion  upon 
the  sacmments  arose,  i,  194 ; 
ground  of  faitli  in,  ii,  223,  230; 
power  of,  i,  420;  ii,  221,  491,  493, 
502,  539;  God  works  only  tlirough, 
i,    412,    490 ;  essential    to    faith,    i, 


6i4 


INDEX. 


266;  ii,  44;  as  letter,  i,  117;  de- 
])endence  of  upon  the  Holy  Spirit,  i, 
117,490;  ii,  44,  220,  490,  492;  ti) 
be  proclaimed  by  men,  i,  490;  ii, 
494;  as  preached  by  the  ungodly, 
ib.;  a  stumbling-stone  to  the  un- 
godly, ii,  49 1  ;  an  essential  mark  of 
the  church,  i,  427;  ii,  506;  em- 
i)races  law  and  go.spel  (see  do.);  the 
general  means  of  grace,  ii,  214, 
220  ;  the  chief  do.,  ii,  43  ;  objective 
certainty  of  its  offer  of  pardon,  i, 
262  ;  relation  of  to  the  sacraments, 
1.  287,  345  ;  i'.  70,  81,  86,  503,  504, 
506;  do.  to  baptism,  i,  394;  ii,  55, 
507,  509,  539  ;  do.  to  the  Lord's 
Supper,  i,  195,  287,  348;  ii,  67, 
113,  124,  128,  506,  514,  539;  de- 
spised by  Fanaiics,  ii,  22,  26  ;  in- 
wardly spoken,  i,  500 ;  ii,  224. 

Words  of  institution  (in  the  Lord's 
.Supper),  the  chief  part  of  the  sacra- 
ment, ii,  70;  significance  of,  i,  347, 
348,350,392;  n,  64,  67,  70, 73, 75, 81, 
115,  134  sq.,  503,  504,519;  wlience 
their  power  derived,  ii,  67  ;  Luther's 
adherence  to,  i,  462;  ii,  257,  513, 
519;  rule  of  identical  predication 
applied  to,  ii,  148  ;  synecdoche  in, 
ii,  80,  147,  188,  514. 

Works,  cannot  make  righteous,  i,  loi, 
153.  154.   155'  158,  416,  45I;  500, 

et passim  ;  of  supererogation,  i,  235, 
271  ;  of  worthiness  and  merit,  ii, 
355 ;  character  of  depends  upon 
motive,  i,  184,  416;  of  love  better 
than  purchase  of  indulgences,  i, 
227,  232,  269;  do.  discredited  by 
Eck  and  Prierias,  i,  269;  do.  should 
be  abundant,  i,  417. 
Works,  good,  appointed  by  the  churcb, 
i.  359;  in  ordinary  calling,!,  202; 
for  self-discipline,  i,  157,  208,  415  ; 
ii,  30,  473 ;  follow  forgiveness, 
i,  267;  a  fruit  of  faith,  i,  286, 
358;  ii,  450,  474,  475,  487;  do.  of 
love,  i,  416;  necessary,  i,  358,  450, 
451,  452,  476,  499;  a  mark  of  the 


church,  ii,  551  ;  accepted  only 
through  grace,  i,  loo ;  ii,  450 ; 
strengthen  Christian  assurance,  i, 
177;  ii,  451;  receive  reward  from 
God,  i.  452,  453  ;  dissertation  upon, 
reviev\'ed,  i,    346-354;   do.  cited,  i, 

357.  375.380,385;  ii,  38- 

World,  the,  created  out  of  nothing,  ii, 
321  ;  has  actual  existence,  i,  144; 
ii,  321  ;  under  direct  and  medi- 
ate divine  control,  ii,  321  ;  to  be 
transformed,  ii,  583;  we  may  here- 
after live  upon,  ii,  584. 

U'orld-kingdoms,  the  four,  i,  423  ;  ii, 

575- 

Worldly  affairs,  Luther's  limited  ac- 
quaintance with,  i,  387. 

Wo7-ius,  Luther  at,  i,  437. 

Worship,  divine,  only  in  appointed  way, 
ii,  468;  forms  of,  optional,  i,  503, 
552;  do.  required  chiefly  for  the  un 
educated,  i,  568;  ii,  556;  apostolic 
modes  of,  ii,    95,  556;   in  paradise, 

ii.  343- 
Wrong,  endurance  of.  See  "Patience." 

Voting,  instruction  of  the,  i,  382. 

Zivickati  Prophets,  the,  i,  443;  ii,  22; 
on  infant  baptism,  ii,  45.  See 
"  Fanatics." 

Z'C'ingti,  fundamental  errors  of,  on 
original  sin,  ii,  100 ;  do.  in  accept- 
ance of  Nestorian  principles,  ii,  182; 
do.  on  righteousness  and  salvation 
of  headien,  i,  177,  189.  358,  374; 
do.  on  Lord's  Supper,  ii,  131,  153, 
'55.  177.  182;  treatise  of,  upon 
Christian  faith,  cited,  ii,  177;  Lu- 
ther's opinion  of,  i,  loo,  160,  178, 
188. 

Zwinglianism,  general  spirit  of,  char- 
acterized, ii,  98;  relation  of  to 
Fanaticism,  ii,  19,  42,  98,  100;  Lu- 
ther's opinion  of,ii,98  sq.,  151,  161, 
182-188,  195;  his  tlieses  against,  ii, 
20;  his  temporary  forbearance  with, 
ii,  182-194. 


Q/U..\A-Cl' 


m 

DATE  DUE 

1 

Ll: 

s 

■ 

m 

GAYLORD           #3523PI        Printed  in  USA 

